Gods immorality.

[SteveII]

I mean, I can guess at your objection - it was a different era, the people involved in these murders were ordinary churchgoers rather than leaders, etc.  But none of those caveats address the issue at hand: your claim (and WLC's claim) that if an order comes from god, it's good.  Period.  Well, these people claim to have been ordered by god to kill their children, either directly or by proxy.  Were they moral acts?  It's not a trick question, nor should it be difficult for you to answer.

God commanded the recognized intermediary leader of a theocracy (Moses, Joshua, or a judge--depending on what story you want to use), to carry out a battle strategy in a brutal time and in a brutal land.

You also are ignoring the context. For example, the 1 Samuel 15 story

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

In case you don't know of the first encounter with the Amalekites when the killed the women and children at the back of the migrating Israelites:

Deuteronomy 25:17–19-- 17 “Remember what Amalek did to you son the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.

So, to address you question as to what was different between a woman killing her own child and this story...quite a bit actually. 

[Time Traveler]

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

So Steve, do you find anything morally wrong with what God commanded here?

[SteveII]

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

So Steve, do you find anything morally wrong with what God commanded here?

For me to decide/do such a thing, yes, it would be morally wrong. For God, no.

[Time Traveler]

So Steve, do you find anything morally wrong with what God commanded here?

For me to decide/do such a thing, yes, it would be morally wrong. For God, no.

So God operates by one moral standard, and humans another. You say it would be wrong for you to do such things, but if God told you to murder men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys, would you do it?

[Vincent]

For me to decide/do such a thing, yes, it would be morally wrong. For God, no.

So God operates by one moral standard, and humans another. You say it would be wrong for you to do such things, but if God told you to murder men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys, would you do it?

This reminds me very much of the Milgram experiment. Christians might be willing to bypass their own personal concept of morality if a perceived authority figure is telling them to do it. Because then they are not held accountable for the action; they do not experience guilt. 

But in this case it's not an actual deity giving them commands. It's a preacher or a pastor or a religious leader or a voice in their head.

[KevinM1]

I mean, I can guess at your objection - it was a different era, the people involved in these murders were ordinary churchgoers rather than leaders, etc.  But none of those caveats address the issue at hand: your claim (and WLC's claim) that if an order comes from god, it's good.  Period.  Well, these people claim to have been ordered by god to kill their children, either directly or by proxy.  Were they moral acts?  It's not a trick question, nor should it be difficult for you to answer.

God commanded the recognized intermediary leader of a theocracy (Moses, Joshua, or a judge--depending on what story you want to use), to carry out a battle strategy in a brutal time and in a brutal land.

You also are ignoring the context. For example, the 1 Samuel 15 story

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

In case you don't know of the first encounter with the Amalekites when the killed the women and children at the back of the migrating Israelites:

Deuteronomy 25:17–19-- 17 “Remember what Amalek did to you son the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.

So, to address you question as to what was different between a woman killing her own child and this story...quite a bit actually. 

You keep trying to deflect the question with caveats. WLC said, point blank, that if god orders something to be done, then those orders are good/moral because god is the embodiment of good and cannot act against his nature. You concurred. The context of the orders is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's the leader of a theocracy receiving the orders or some random woman. It doesn't matter if it happened in the ancient Middle East or modern USA. God is absolute, remember? He's supposed to transcend any particular context, and his word is law. Again, that's what WLC said he lives by, and you agreed.

So, were those women right to murder their kids because god ordered them to? It's a very simple question, one you should be able to answer directly.

[robvalue]

Let me summarise the theist position on morality:

http://youtu.be/Tsl7-TJtPew

[SteveII]

For me to decide/do such a thing, yes, it would be morally wrong. For God, no.

So God operates by one moral standard, and humans another. You say it would be wrong for you to do such things, but if God told you to murder men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys, would you do it?

No, I would not. But if I were a leader of a theocracy and regularly spoke to God about how to govern, then that would be a different story. Further to that, the context today is way different. Those were brutal times and such strategies were common-- i.e. the moral outrage would not be there (or be substantially less). In addition, God specifically was establishing a nation unlike all the others that inhabited the area. Human and child sacrifice was practiced as well as other objectionable practices and he did not want those mixing into what he was trying to do--preserve a nation that would eventually lead to Christ. You are just not going to see this context in anything after the NT.

[robvalue]

Hmm. So God would be immoral if he suggested you do those things?

[SteveII]

God commanded the recognized intermediary leader of a theocracy (Moses, Joshua, or a judge--depending on what story you want to use), to carry out a battle strategy in a brutal time and in a brutal land.

You also are ignoring the context. For example, the 1 Samuel 15 story

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

In case you don't know of the first encounter with the Amalekites when the killed the women and children at the back of the migrating Israelites:

Deuteronomy 25:17–19-- 17 “Remember what Amalek did to you son the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.

So, to address you question as to what was different between a woman killing her own child and this story...quite a bit actually. 

You keep trying to deflect the question with caveats.  WLC said, point blank, that if god orders something to be done, then those orders are good/moral because god is the embodiment of good and cannot act against his nature.  You concurred.  The context of the orders is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if it's the leader of a theocracy receiving the orders or some random woman.  It doesn't matter if it happened in the ancient Middle East or modern USA.  God is absolute, remember?  He's supposed to transcend any particular context, and his word is law.  Again, that's what WLC said he lives by, and you agreed.

So, were those women right to murder their kids because god ordered them to?  It's a very simple question, one you should be able to answer directly.

No, the women were not right in murdering their kids. You asked why this is different. I explained. The context is not irrelevant, it is crucial. God announced why he was issuing the command ahead of time (even speaking about this very topic 400 years earlier). 

Yes, God is absolute. His commands are absolute. Over the millennium, he has revealed himself and messages in different ways. Way back he spoke to people (judges, prophets, priests, kings).  Then he spoke through Christ and the apostles--leaving a new set of instructions to live by. The current revelation is good from here on out. That revelation centers around forgiveness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self control and a personal relationship with God. Since killing innocent people would be a contradiction to the last and final revelation from God, it can be firmly established that the message was not from God.