tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post8598894195681073263..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: God the great aborticianRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-80783965196349106022008-12-19T07:05:00.000-06:002008-12-19T07:05:00.000-06:00NAL,Yes, I would agree. We're parsing the axiomati...NAL,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I would agree. We're parsing the axiomatic - it's natural to expect that tautologies would emerge.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul C,<BR/><BR/>You are also right. leoJ rotsaP called me on this, and so my understanding has evolved. As I've said many times before, retractions are allowed around here. I'm entitled to them sometimes too. ;-)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-88750612454798413022008-12-19T06:36:00.000-06:002008-12-19T06:36:00.000-06:00A point on Euthyphro: this not a logical dilemma....A point on Euthyphro: this not a logical dilemma. It suggests that morality is (on one horn) above God, or else (on the other) 'arbitrary'. The first horn disagrees with a Christian view of God - obviously, you can't have a being at once ultimate and subordinate. So if Christians thought that, they would be inconsistent with other parts of revelation. But the second does not. After all, considering that Christians view God as the creator and source of reason, knowledge, elementary matter, and a good many other things, it's not really contradictory to posit him as the grounding and source of morality. In fact, that would make morality arbitrary in the technical sense of the word: established by the one who has authority justly to do so.<BR/><BR/>It is also the case, per Rho's assertion (although on my view it tends towards the tautological), that God's actions are also good-in-themselves; because they do conform to the standard of his past behavior, which may thus be construed (at least in a loose sense) to be a sort of rule in the sense of 'norm'. It is somewhat more a point about his consistency than his moral goodness, but the categories are not entirely dissimilar.<BR/><BR/>Paul C - I was not arguing that context is irrelevant for God. On the contrary, I think that his context vis-a-vis creation serves as a prima facie moral justification. As members of creation, we have no further recourse - as Kant might say, in one of his spendid multisyllables, this is the imperscrutability of divine justice. The shoplifting example was meant as a small illustration that the identity of the actor affects how our moral discourse will consider him. God's identity is such that our moral discourse derives from him, and therefore, properly speaking, he stands outside and above it. It comes from him, and cannot judge him.<BR/><BR/>As it happens, God often behaves in a manner which we can easily justify under our own system. But this is not necessary.<BR/><BR/>I hope that serves to clarify my meaning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-14884405129164742272008-12-19T04:56:00.000-06:002008-12-19T04:56:00.000-06:00In response to the Euthyphro dilemma - "is it good...In response to the Euthyphro dilemma - "is it good b/c God commanded it, or did God command it b/c it's good?" - you have now given three answers:<BR/><BR/>i. At Wed Dec 17, 10:21:00 AM CST you replied: "Of course, the answer is neither."<BR/><BR/>ii. You then qualified this response with: "It is good b/c it is in accord with God's nature and character, and He always acts in accordance therewith". Since his commands are acts in accord with his nature, this is the same as saying that it is good because God commanded it.<BR/><BR/>iii. Finally at Thu Dec 18, 03:04:00 PM CST you replied "The answer is the latter", i.e. that God commands it because it's good.<BR/><BR/>Of course, at Wed Dec 17, 02:14:00 PM CST you also admitted that you fail to see where you've been inconsistent. I would suggest that this statement isn't just applicable to this thread, but is more of a general description of your thinking.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-69923579387461770292008-12-18T16:14:00.000-06:002008-12-18T16:14:00.000-06:00Rho:This is not the same thing as saying, "Then it...Rho:<BR/><B>This is not the same thing as saying, "Then it's good independent of God's character and nature" ...</B><BR/><BR/>Since God is justified in taking any action, and any action is in accordance with His character and nature, God's character and nature is good only by definition. That's like saying, "Good is not independent of its definition".NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-21462973109370048802008-12-18T15:53:00.000-06:002008-12-18T15:53:00.000-06:00Correct, b/c there are plenty of good things that ...Correct, b/c there are plenty of good things that God has not revealed to humanity. <BR/>This is not the same thing as saying, "Then it's good independent of God's character and nature", however, just for clarification's sake.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-78321388876082575872008-12-18T15:45:00.000-06:002008-12-18T15:45:00.000-06:00Rho:The answer is the latter, [God command[ed] it ...Rho:<BR/><B>The answer is the latter, [God command[ed] it b/c it's good] </B><BR/><BR/>Then it's good independent of whether God commands it or not.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30929485864485595182008-12-18T15:12:00.000-06:002008-12-18T15:12:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-65631105369140913402008-12-18T15:04:00.000-06:002008-12-18T15:04:00.000-06:00The commands part would seem to run up against the...<I>The commands part would seem to run up against the Euthyphro dilemma.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, let's unpack that. <BR/>Euthyphro dilemma = is it good b/c God commanded it, or did God command it b/c it's good?<BR/><BR/>The answer is the latter, with a qualification related to the nature of good vs how it is known to humans.<BR/>Good = that which corresponds to God's nature and character.<BR/>The way we know good = God communicates commands to us that correspond to His nature and character.<BR/>I don't really see how it's a dilemma at all. The answer is that God commands whatever b/c it is good, b/c it conforms with God's character and nature.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The revelations part requires an a prori belief in God. </I><BR/><BR/><B>Accessing and believing</B> them requires the belief, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that they are binding and in force. It's not God's problem that you don't believe. It's yours.<BR/>You may believe there's no bus coming towards you on the highway, but when it encounters you at 50 mph, your belief changes nothing. You get run over. Same here.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-37086932425197805892008-12-18T14:24:00.000-06:002008-12-18T14:24:00.000-06:00Commands and revelations. The commands part would ...Commands and revelations. The commands part would seem to run up against the Euthyphro dilemma. The revelations part requires an <I>a prori</I> belief in God. It would seem like your sense of morality is valid only for believers.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38562798635337863232008-12-18T13:32:00.000-06:002008-12-18T13:32:00.000-06:00Correct - you're getting it.We can distinguish the...Correct - you're getting it.<BR/>We can distinguish the justifiability of ANY action thru recourse to His commands and what He has revealed about Himself.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-6022781286164537692008-12-18T13:17:00.000-06:002008-12-18T13:17:00.000-06:00Let me see if I've got this straight. Whatever God...Let me see if I've got this straight. Whatever God does is always moral and always in accordance with his nature. Sometimes when humans do the same thing it is immoral. <BR/><BR/>What do you use as a basis for determining what actions of God's, that are always justified when He does them, are unjustified (immoral) when humans do them?NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-60891840737823463582008-12-18T11:22:00.000-06:002008-12-18T11:22:00.000-06:00Paul C said:please feel free to demonstrate how it...Paul C said:<BR/><I>please feel free to demonstrate how it's not morally wrong to kill Hitler on 20 July 1944 by your own standards.</I><BR/><BR/>As I said, it's a question of authority. If it is justifiable to kill, then it's justifiable to kill. I don't see what's so hard about that.<BR/>Romans 13, among other places, explains that gov't has the authority to put to death those that commit capital crimes. Hitler was a genocidal maniac.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>it's okay to murder somebody if you have "information" about them</I><BR/><BR/>Which is a total misunderstanding of what I said.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>God has all possible information, and therefore always acts for the best. The problem with this is - God let Hitler live.</I><BR/><BR/>He did? Hitler is still alive?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Hitler's living was for the best, and if you were given the opportunity to kill Hitler on 20 July, you would actually be going against God's will.</I><BR/><BR/>You are thinking about God's will far too simplistically. God has foreordained every event in the universe from eternity past. But He has not exhaustively revealed that ordination. He has commanded us to act according to His cmdmts. <BR/>So if I have the justification to kill, I am permitted to. If I am thwarted, I am thwarted - that has nothing to do with the justification for my actions. This is a similar "dilemma" in Camus' _La Peste_ and exhibits the same lack of understanding.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>is it still justified to kill Hitler?</I><BR/><BR/>1) He's already dead. <BR/>2) I explained who and why.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Are there any things that it is good for humans to do but not-good for God to do?</I><BR/><BR/>Good question, let me brainstorm. <BR/>Sex is not not-good for God, but it is impossible... but that doesn't fit the bill.<BR/>Ah yes! Repentance of sin is one example. 'Course, that's impossible too. I might have to munch on this one and come back to it. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Is something good because it is in accord with God's character, or is God's character in accord with it because it is good?</I><BR/><BR/>It's the former. Stuff is good b/c it's in accord with God's character.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>you're probably a Monopolist Christian like Rhology.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a new one on me. Google didn't even help. Could you explain?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Why is it wrong for you to lock shoplifters in your closet, and why is it right for law officers to lock them up? </I><BR/><BR/>B/c they have authority to punish wrongdoers, as officials of the gov't. Vigilantes and regular citizens don't have the right to dispense legal justice like that, ordinarily.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You are confusing legal with moral.</I><BR/><BR/>In this case, biblically, they are very closely aligned.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Rhology, who defines morality solely in terms of what God does.</I><BR/><BR/>??? So you try to catch me on the horns of a dilemma above, namely: "Is something good because it is in accord with God's character, or is God's character in accord with it because it is good?" and then you try to foist a completely different position on me? What are you doing?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>NAL said:<BR/><I>Good for whom? Humans?</I><BR/><BR/>It is good for everyone for God to put people to death when He does so. <BR/>More generally said: It is good for everyone for God to _______ when He does so. B/c God always acts in accord with His nature and character, and His nature and character are the very definition of good.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If so, then abortion is in accord with God's nature, so why isn't abortion good?</I><BR/><BR/>For *GOD* to engage in killing people is good. But humans have very limited scope of permissibility and justification for killing other humans.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If you equate abortion with murder, then murder is in accord with God's nature. </I><BR/><BR/>Category error. Abortion is murder b/c it is humans engaging in the unjustifiable ending of human life. <BR/>God, OTOH, is always justified in ending human life whenever He chooses.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76181070258933388982008-12-17T17:30:00.000-06:002008-12-17T17:30:00.000-06:00Rho:It is good b/c it is in accord with God's natu...Rho:<BR/><B>It is good b/c it is in accord with God's nature and character, and He always acts in accordance therewith. </B><BR/><BR/>Good for whom? Humans? If so, then abortion is in accord with God's nature, so why isn't abortion good? If you derive your sense of good solely from God's nature, then abortion is good. If you equate abortion with murder, then murder is in accord with God's nature. Or, if you equate abortion with murder, then you are not deriving your sense of morality solely from God's nature.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-79903463464513341842008-12-17T17:15:00.000-06:002008-12-17T17:15:00.000-06:00I don't grant that for an instant - context matter...<I>I don't grant that for an instant - context matters.</I><BR/><BR/>I completely agree - but you and Rhology are arguing that context does not matter where God is concerned. I would say that you can't have it both ways - but then you're probably a Monopolist Christian like Rhology.<BR/><BR/><I>It is wrong for me to tie up shoplifters and lock them in my closet; for authorised agents of the state, using a public cell, that becomes a necessary and virtuous action. And the constable and I are ontologically similar - he just has a better hat.</I><BR/><BR/>Why is it wrong for you to lock shoplifters in your closet, and why is it right for law officers to lock them up? You are confusing legal with moral. And whether the constable and yourself are ontologically similar depends on what ontology are using. So I'm entirely unsure what you're arguing in this instance.<BR/><BR/><I>God is rather obviously in a different context than we are. Morality does appear to make certain demands on him - he cannot, for example, abandon his promises.</I><BR/><BR/>So you disagree with Rhology, who defines morality solely in terms of what God does. If that's the case, then morality makes no demands on God at all. As the first comment said, what a surprise to find two Christians who disagree about something incredibly basic.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-28891375167983252332008-12-17T16:12:00.000-06:002008-12-17T16:12:00.000-06:00Is it good b/c God commanded it, or is it that God...<I>Is it good b/c God commanded it, or is it that God commanded it b/c it's good? Of course, the answer is neither. It is good b/c it is in accord with God's nature and character, and He always acts in accordance therewith.</I><BR/><BR/>You have not answered the dilemma, merely changed the wording. Is something good because it is in accord with God's character, or is God's character in accord with it because it is good?Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2993732074777922732008-12-17T15:43:00.000-06:002008-12-17T15:43:00.000-06:00Why would it be morally wrong?You have said that "...<I>Why would it be morally wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>You have said that "there is no indication from the Bible that it is morally wrong to KILL, only that it is wrong to MURDER", and you have defined murder as the unlawful taking of human life. As I said, please feel free to demonstrate how it's not morally wrong to kill Hitler on 20 July 1944 by your own standards.<BR/><BR/><I>Even if I'm wrong about that, the thought experiment has served its purpose - has to do with INFORMATION.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're adding yet another caveat to your allegedly universal ban on murder - that it's okay to murder somebody if you have "information" about them.<BR/><BR/>Presumably your argument is that God has all possible information, and therefore always acts for the best. The problem with this is - God let Hitler live. So clearly Hitler's living was for the best, and if you were given the opportunity to kill Hitler on 20 July, you would actually be going against God's will.<BR/><BR/>So is it still justified to kill Hitler?<BR/><BR/><I>More like two applications.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's very clearly two definitions of good. This can be seen because there are some things that you claim that it is good for God to do but not-good for humans to do. That's not a different application, that's a different definition.<BR/><BR/>Are there any things that it is good for humans to do but not-good for God to do?<BR/><BR/><I>OK, then you need to start showing why my position is internally inconsistent rather than making moralistic statements like "It would still be morally wrong" from your 1st sentence.</I><BR/><BR/>I have, but as you have pointed out so succintly, you simply fail to see it.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2299901022325412602008-12-17T14:14:00.000-06:002008-12-17T14:14:00.000-06:00NAL, I fail to see where I've been inconsistent.NAL, I fail to see where I've been inconsistent.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89731377182385311942008-12-17T13:32:00.000-06:002008-12-17T13:32:00.000-06:00Well, now that we're all so chummy, I'd like to se...Well, now that we're all so chummy, I'd like to see you defend your nonsensical assertion that morality implies simplistic universality. I don't grant that for an instant - context matters. <BR/><BR/>It is wrong for me to tie up shoplifters and lock them in my closet; for authorised agents of the state, using a public cell, that becomes a necessary and virtuous action. And the constable and I are ontologically similar - he just has a better hat.<BR/><BR/>God is rather obviously in a different context than we are. Morality does appear to make certain demands on him - he cannot, for example, abandon his promises. But to suppose that this is equivalent to having moral standards identical to a human's is infantile.<BR/><BR/>Thus:<BR/>P1 - the moral action in a given case depends upon the identity and position of the actor.<BR/>P2 - God is clearly distinct from humanity in both of these categories<BR/>C - God's moral scope is not identical with that of humanity<BR/><BR/>Oh, and in re: different orders of being - angels can walk through walls whilst retaining the ability to interact with the physical world. (cf. Acts 12.7)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89006675735498358742008-12-17T13:23:00.000-06:002008-12-17T13:23:00.000-06:00I was talking about cases where the fetus is the c...I was talking about cases where the fetus is the cause of the threat to the mother's life. It wasn't an argument for abortion, it was an attempt to see if you were consistent in your views about what constitutes killing v. murdering. Since you claim abortion = murder, you fail the consistency test.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38784094371095126172008-12-17T11:47:00.000-06:002008-12-17T11:47:00.000-06:00That's a toughy, actually, but only if we restate ...That's a toughy, actually, but only if we restate it a bit.<BR/>Abortion = murder. <BR/><BR/>OTOH, if we are trying to save the life of the mother and an unavoidable consequence of that procedure is the death of the baby, then that's permissible. Sucks, but permissible.<BR/><BR/>I hasten to add that I only bother to answer b/c this is a thread on the MORALITY of abortion. Such a situation is less than 0.1% of all abortions performed, ANYwhere, so it is a terrible argument for the pro-choice position.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44827192545322215362008-12-17T11:07:00.000-06:002008-12-17T11:07:00.000-06:00Rho:Specifically to this question - there is no in...Rho:<BR/><B>Specifically to this question - there is no indication from the Bible that it is morally wrong to KILL, only that it is wrong to MURDER. Killing is permitted in certain situations. </B><BR/><BR/>So, would you consider an abortion, that was performed to save the mother's life, killing instead of murder?NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-55848035578144910292008-12-17T10:21:00.000-06:002008-12-17T10:21:00.000-06:00Why would it be morally wrong? On whose standard?...Why would it be morally wrong? On whose standard? The biblical one or your subjective personal one?<BR/>If the former, why? if the latter, why I'm not obligated to care is well-documented in this blog's archives.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Please feel free to demonstrate how it's morally right to kill Hitler on 20 July 1944 by your standards,</I><BR/><BR/>Even if I'm wrong about that, the thought experiment has served its purpose - has to do with INFORMATION. <BR/>Hitler was a genocidal maniac. For a group of conscientious objectors from within his own gov't to kill him would be justified, I should think. But I could be wrong about that.<BR/>'Twould not be the same if a mugger slit his throat and stole his wallet (were that possible). <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The problem is this comments thread you are arguing that there are two definitions of "good"</I><BR/><BR/>More like two applications. <BR/>Remember, I don't grant that God commits murder. He does end life, yeah, but it's all justified b/c all humans are capital criminals and live any life they live by His patient forbearance, not b/c they deserve it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>This of course raises the problem of how you distinguish between the two</I><BR/><BR/>He's God, and I'm not. What's wrong with that? It's all about authority. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What is "lawful" varies across time and place...This of course is at odds with what your previous position that right and wrong are objective.</I><BR/><BR/>God's law, not human law. <BR/>Since I'm talking about God's law, the objective claim remains in place. You've talked to me a fair amount - I'm surprised you don't remember that.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That's irrelevant, since I'm not asking that you listen to me as a moral authority.</I><BR/><BR/>OK, then you need to start showing why my position is internally inconsistent rather than making moralistic statements like "It would still be morally wrong" from your 1st sentence.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently I mistakenly conflated DCT and Euth. <BR/>Thus the oft-stated dilemma. Of course, DCT is not identical to Euthyphro dilemma. The question is stated - Is it good b/c God commanded it, or is it that God commanded it b/c it's good?<BR/>Of course, the answer is neither. It is good b/c it is in accord with God's nature and character, and He always acts in accordance therewith. <BR/>Another part of the answer is that, absent this definition, there is no good at all. There just is. Of course, you have a longstanding open invitation to provide an alternative.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-58481063302925079362008-12-17T08:47:00.000-06:002008-12-17T08:47:00.000-06:00Now, if he had further information, he'd realise t...<I>Now, if he had further information, he'd realise that the target is actually a pretty bad guy and needs to be assassinated, and he might agree, but at first he'd think it was morally wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>It would still be morally wrong, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise. What you have demonstrated is only that sometimes it may be necessary to choose between the lesser of two evils. Please feel free to demonstrate how it's morally right to kill Hitler on 20 July 1944 by your standards, but I think you'll find it difficult, if not impossible.<BR/><BR/><I>He has authority to do what He wants, and further, what He does is always good, by definition.</I><BR/><BR/>I understand. The problem is this comments thread you are arguing that there are two definitions of "good" - one for God (what God does) and one for man (what God commands). This of course raises the problem of how you distinguish between the two, for which you have offered no explanation, only assertion. Perhaps you could explain?<BR/><BR/><I>Specifically to this question - there is no indication from the Bible that it is morally wrong to KILL, only that it is wrong to MURDER. Killing is permitted in certain situations. Murder is not. Murder = the unlawful taking of human life.</I><BR/><BR/>What is "lawful" varies across time and place, across cultures and legal systems; so your argument is that what is morally wrong varies in a similar way. This of course is at odds with what your previous position that right and wrong are objective.<BR/><BR/><I>You may not agree, but you have never given even close to an objective standard by which you would judge ANY moral question, so there is no reason to listen to you as a moral authority.</I><BR/><BR/>That's irrelevant, since I'm not asking that you listen to me as a moral authority. I'm merely pointing out that your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe you could explain sometime how [Euthyphro] applies to someone who doesn't hold to the divine command theory of morality, like me.</I><BR/><BR/>"Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires." - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could explain how this differs from your view, since they appear to be identical.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84396038417488843422008-12-17T07:36:00.000-06:002008-12-17T07:36:00.000-06:00It is morally wrong if you to do murder a man! Um....<I>It is morally wrong if you to do murder a man! </I><BR/><BR/>Um... what I meant was: "It is morally wrong for you to murder a man!"<BR/>Sorry.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-12980864166223876702008-12-17T07:35:00.000-06:002008-12-17T07:35:00.000-06:00If you believe in moral judgments, an action is ei...<I>If you believe in moral judgments, an action is either good or bad regardless of who's carrying it out. </I><BR/><BR/>Plenty of distinctions are made in moral judgments depending on who does them and the circumstance and the amount of knowledge present in the situation.<BR/>Take the thought experiment of Joe the Galilean, a disciple of Jesus Christ, Who just a minute ago ascended into Heaven. Whoa. But at that very moment, he is suddenly teleported into the room where the 20 July plot is about to assassinate Hitler. What the heck? Wait a minute, sirs, you cannot do this thing. It is morally wrong if you to do murder a man! <BR/>Now, if he had further information, he'd realise that the target is actually a pretty bad guy and needs to be assassinated, and he might agree, but at first he'd think it was morally wrong. <BR/>Same here - we have some information about stuff, God has all of it. We have His command. We do not have His authority. He has authority to do what He wants, and further, what He does is always good, <B>by definition</B>. <BR/><BR/>Specifically to this question - there is no indication from the Bible that it is morally wrong to KILL, only that it is wrong to MURDER. Killing is permitted in certain situations. Murder is not. Murder = the unlawful taking of human life. <BR/>But God never murders. All people are capital criminals in His sight. Many of them He permits to live lives, some He does not, and He is the one Who gets to make that decision. You may not agree, but you have never given even close to an objective standard by which you would judge ANY moral question, so there is no reason to listen to you as a moral authority. <BR/><BR/>You like to say "Euthyphro" - it is apparently like your lucky rabbit's foot. Maybe you could explain sometime how it applies to someone who doesn't hold to the divine command theory of morality, like me.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com