Real is defined as: actually existing as a thing. Existence is defined as: The state of having objective reality. So the definition of real depends on the definition of existence. — MoK

And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular.

Is the distinction you're trying to make here between objective reality and merely subjective experience? For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods?

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", allowing organs to be harvested for transplant while they are still fresh because the patient's (donor's) heart and lungs are still functioning. (See David S. Oderberg, Applied Ethics: A Non-Consequentialist Approach, sec. 2.7.) And there may be others. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.

Mathematicians can define their terms as they like, but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.

But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).

Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).

And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Correct. So, I need to provide an example to illustrate what I mean by "exist". When something, such as a human, exists, it is a part of reality. By reality, I mean the set of all objects, whether mental or non-mental. Mental objects, such as experiencing the red color of a rose, and non-mental objects, such as a cup of tea. So, something can be unreal yet still exist, such as an experience. In the same manner, something can be real and exist, such as matter. Something that does not exist cannot be real. And eventually, nothing is defined as something that does not exist and is not real. I have to say, making the distinction between existence and real started from a post by me that from which Bob agreed that evil exists, but it is not real. The story is long, so please read the discussion if you are interested.

Is the distinction you're trying to make here between objective reality and merely subjective experience? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, that is a part of the discussion.

For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I don't understand how this example is proper to what you said before? Do you mind elaborating?

Interpret the text to be talking about indirect intention, and adjust one's interpretive hermeneutic (to deviate from the literal meaning).
Hold that life and death are in God's hands, that for God to kill is not murder, and that God can temporarily delegate this power.
Hold that the Amalekites were demons and demons can be justly killed (see Hanover's post).
Hold to some form of group morality rather than a strict individual morality.
Hold to a pedagogical approach on the part of God. — Leontiskos

IIRC, if we take the Book of Samuel literally, we understand that God's words/wishes/desires are all conveyed through the prophet Samuel. Samuel serves as a mediator between the divine and the Israelites, allowing us to contextualize him with other divine mediators. Additionally, in the Book of Samuel, Samuel often plays an active role in shaping events or situations to his will. In any case, the words we have in the Book of Samuel are Samuel conveying the divine will, and that ambiguity runs through the text (i.e. whether it is God or Samuel making the commands... or both). If I had to judge, I'd say it's a mix of both. Even at this early date (c.1050 bc-1000 bc), the words of God are not as clear and direct as they were before in the Torah. The Torah is from Sinai; Samuel, while a brilliant piece of literature, isn't.

Heh... what a weird post for the 21st century. *shrug* I don't even know how to step backwards in human psychology to begin thinking like this. Perhaps the OP should learn more about modern psychology. You're projecting your own misconceptions upon the world and taking them as Truth...

But that is my point. By this means I am making clear the sense in which perspective is essential for any judgement about what exists — — Wayfarer

There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable, the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” — Theodore Lessing, in Jewish Self-Hate.

Nietzsche on the OP's psychology:

On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!

11

The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred—the former an imitation, an "extra," an additional nuance; the latter, on the other hand, the original, the beginning, the essential act in the conception of a slave-morality—these two words "bad" and "evil," how great a difference do they mark, in spite of the fact that they have an identical contrary in the idea "good." But the idea "good" is not the same: much rather let the question be asked, "Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment?" In all sternness let it be answered thus:—just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness, into a new colour, a new signification, a new appearance. — Genealogy of Morals 10/11

Further still this is what Nietzsche means in AC 24... on how Christians cherish Antisemitism and don't realize it's just one more step in the Judaic equation... where the virtue of calling things evil begins to back bite itself out of a different perspective... as the final consequence of the psychology of Judaism.

OPs taking the psychology of Judaism and inverting it back upon itself. Which is where anti semitism arises. Not that OP is one. But he's traversing that slippery slope.

I take it that your objection to (a) is because (a) positively mentions exceptions for rape and incest, but you do not similarly object to (a') because it does not positively mention an "exception" for before 6 weeks, although it implicitly allows it because it only prohibits after 6 weeks? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Exactly. One explicates an endorsement; the other omits a discussion about it.

Similarly, then, your objection to the legislation concerning slavery is that even if it greatly ameliorates the evils of how slavery is practiced, it still recognizes a right of masters to own slaves? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes.

And where exactly does it say this? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

All over the place. For example here:

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

-- Exodus 21:20-21.

And here:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Leviticus 25:44-46

No, I was thinking of offering a reductio ad absurdum against the argument, but it looks as though you agree that killing with indirect intention is not necessarily unjust.
…
Okay, I think you are reasoning well in this. :up:

:up:

What would you have decreed if you were instructing the Israelites?

The difficulty in this question is that:

1. It shifts the discussion from what a perfect being would do to what a nuanced, particular human would do; and

2. We don’t have to have knowledge of what the best choice is to know some of the bad choices. I can say that a pizza-lover does not throwaway a perfectly good pizza without speaking to what a pizza-lover’s best choice is in terms of what to do with it.

If I had to answer, I would say that I would have told the Israelites to focus on themselves and ignore the immoralities of the Amalekites: they don’t have a duty to sacrifice their own people in just wars against abominable nations. I think it is a, e.g., just war to conquer North Korean but I wouldn’t advocate for the US to start WWIII over it.

If I had to decree the just war, then I would say to:

1. Eliminate the enemy combatants while limiting innocent and non-combatant civilians;

2. Assimilate any of the people that they can without assuming significant risk to their own sovereignty and stability;

3. Segregate those who cannot be assimilated into their own areas and give them the freedom to leave (and go somewhere else) if they want;

4. Give as much aid as feasible to those segregated.

I would hold a significant weight to the in-group over the out-group; so I wouldn’t probably decree any commandments to sacrifice one’s own people to free another people.

Likewise, those who are not assimilated would not be citizens of Israel; so they would, in necessary, be left to themselves if Israel cannot afford to help them; and this could be all the way up to starvation, disease, and death.

The reason I don't personally find the critique overwhelming is because, faced with that situation, I have no clear alternative.* I guess I could say, "Assuming the children are not demonic, make sure to only intend to kill them indirectly." Yet such an approach would be incongruous in an ancient text and an ancient paradigm, and it would also somewhat undermine the whole "remove evil at its root" meaning of the text. I think the nub for you is that the text presupposes that a child can be deserving of death, and this is seen as incredible.

Yeah, but wouldn’t you agree it would be immoral what they did since it is directly intentional? I’m not saying they would have had this level of a sophistication in their ethics back then; but we know it to be immoral.

Interpret the text to be talking about indirect intention, and adjust one's interpretive hermeneutic (to deviate from the literal meaning).

This interpretation seems to superficially reinterpret the text though; given that it explicitly details directly intentionally killing children. Wouldn’t this interpretation jeopardize the entire Bible? If someone can reinterpret what is obviously meant one way as another, then why can’t I about anything therein?

Hold that life and death are in God's hands, that for God to kill is not murder, and that God can temporarily delegate this power.

This is the most plausible out of them all, and is the one Aquinas and Craig takes. Again, though, the bullet here is that one has to hold that murder is either not the direct intentional killing of an innocent person or that murder is not always unjust. That is a necessary consequence of this view.

Hold that the Amalekites were demons and demons can be justly killed

This is an interesting one I am admittedly not very familiar with: I’ll have to think about that one.

Hold to some form of group morality rather than a strict individual morality.

This has to be immoral: it would conflate culpability and innocence with the individual and group.

Hold to a pedagogical approach on the part of God.

Perhaps, taken singly, none of those are satisfactory. It is worth noting that the last option, which 
↪Hanover
 alluded to, seems to be supported by later texts such as Ezekiel 18:20. This goes to the fact that, read literally, the Bible does contradict itself. For example, if God does not change, God killed the Amalekite children for the wickedness of their parents, the Amalekite children were human, and Ezekiel 18:20 holds, then we have a contradiction. Indeed the literary genres found in the Bible are not really meant to support that level of scrutiny. This does not dissolve the problem, but it does complicate it.

Yeah, that’s true. I am not sure how to interpret the texts. Maybe it is all spiritual lessons; but then what isn’t and what is the lesson?

* Also, I am not willing to abandon Christianity on this basis. I would need a foundational alternative to Christianity to which to turn before I would be more comfortable with such a move

I am working on an alternative that I will share with you when it is ready to hear your thoughts.

In any case, the words we have in the Book of Samuel are Samuel conveying the divine will, and that ambiguity runs through the text (i.e. whether it is God or Samuel making the commands... or both). If I had to judge, I'd say it's a mix of both. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that's a good point. Your emphasis on weighting different parts of the canon is edifying and intuitive. I was aware that such is a traditional Hebrew approach, but I had never witnessed it first-hand.

On a similar note, I was revisiting the book, Dark Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with Benedict XVI and Thomas Aquinas. The author looks at the way that the Pharaoh of the Exodus story is variously described as having his heart hardened by God, as hardening his own heart, and as simply having his heart hardened (in a passive sense). The author is trying to demonstrate the manner in which the Hebrew understanding of God's action is in a continual process of development, and I would add that such a topic is inherently unwieldy and difficult to understand. For example, there is a constant vacillation in the Bible between the idea that everything is according to God's will (and therefore even evil things are brought about by God), and the idea that God does not do or will evil. I think that's a natural vacillation that can't be overcome easily or quickly, and the sacred texts inevitably reflect this reality.

Would you make a car that you are sure will not take you to the end of a long journey

This is disanalogous to allowing evil. An analogous version of your example would be: “Would you make a car that works fine but you knew someone else could come and mess it up?”.

Perfect God can only create perfect things

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that those things are not subject to change.

In my dictionary, which present my word view, good is related to pleasure and evil is related to pai

But this makes your argument weaker; because then perfection isn’t about goodness necessarily, since God could create being without pain or pleasure—e.g., a rock.

 there are evil creatures who prefer evil too, like masochists.

A masochist doesn’t prefer evil; they does mis-hierarchize or misunderstand the goods. Specifically, they will in accord with getting a euphoric high where pain is the means and not the end. To truly prefer evil, is to will it as an end.

:up:

Their view leads to the unhelpful absurdity that murder never happens on earth.

I think that, in answer to my question, "wouldn't you also have to say that (a') is condoning abortion during the first six weeks?", your "Yes" meant "No", because you went on to say "a' does not."

Sorry, I may have misread your original question. Yes, I would say that “No”; (a)’ does not condone abortion prior to six weeks: it omits that from the discussion. If you could demonstrate, in the given example, that the author is omitting it because they intent for it to be legal; then maybe that author is intending an implicit endorsement, but someone else could vote for it and not condone it because the verbiage itself does not condone it.

I take it that your objection to (a) is because (a) positively mentions exceptions for rape and incest, but you do not similarly object to (a') because it does not positively mention an "exception" for before 6 weeks, although it implicitly allows it because it only prohibits after 6 weeks?

Exactly.

Similarly, then, your objection to the legislation concerning slavery is that even if it greatly ameliorates the evils of how slavery is practiced, it still recognizes a right of masters to own slaves? And where exactly does it say this?

I believe I already responded to this, but I can provide it again if you would like.

So far we have five senses of death:

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", ....
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God. — GregW

It is not clear to me how (5) is different from (3), unless maybe you believe that God destroys, i.e. literally annihilates the soul in (5)? To my understanding, "separated eternally from God" and "dead to God" are the same thing.

... but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.

But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).

Okay, we agree that human beings commit murder by causing death in senses 1, 2, 4 (except I would not include 4 because it is not true death). However, I was under the impression that elsewhere you were saying God did not commit murder when He put someone to death in sense 1, 2, or 4, but only if He killed someone in sense 3 or 5. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that was what you meant, is that not an equivocation?

Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).

And why would that commandment not apply to God himself in senses 1, 2, 4?

And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Correct. So, I need to provide an example to illustrate what I mean by "exist". When something, such as a human, exists, it is a part of reality. By reality, I mean the set of all objects, whether mental or non-mental. Mental objects, such as experiencing the red color of a rose, and non-mental objects, such as a cup of tea. So, something can be unreal yet still exist, such as an experience. In the same manner, something can be real and exist, such as matter. Something that does not exist cannot be real. And eventually, nothing is defined as something that does not exist and is not real. I have to say, making the distinction between existence and real started from a post by me that from which Bob agreed that evil exists, but it is not real. The story is long, so please read the discussion if you are interested. — MoK

Okay, thanks for clarifying. "Is Real" = exists objectively. "Exists" may be subjective or objective.

Yes, I knew you were having that discussion with Bob Ross, and it was confusing me because I didn't understand your terms.

For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I don't understand how this example is proper to what you said before? Do you mind elaborating?

Appearance of bear when there is no bear: subjective. In your terms: exists, but not real.

Imagining a unicorn: ditto

Seeing the bear which is really in the woods: objective. In your terms: exists, and is real.

I hope I've got that straight!

So far we have five senses of death:

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", ....
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.
— GregW

It is not clear to me how (5) is different from (3), unless maybe you believe that God destroys, i.e. literally annihilates the soul in (5)? To my understanding, "separated eternally from God" and "dead to God" are the same thing. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Gregory, (3) is distinguish from (5) in that you are not dead to God in (3). You still exist in Hell. In (5), you are dead to God. You cease to exist to God.

... but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.

But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).

Okay, we agree that human beings commit murder by causing death in senses 1, 2, 4 (except I would not include 4 because it is not true death). However, I was under the impression that elsewhere you were saying God did not commit murder when He put someone to death in sense 1, 2, or 4, but only if He killed someone in sense 3 or 5. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that was what you meant, is that not an equivocation? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

In (1), (2), (4), you are dead to the world, but you are not dead to God, even if God appeared to have murdered, killed, and made you dead. If you are not dead to God, then you have not been murdered, killed, or made dead by God.

Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).

And why would that commandment not apply to God himself in senses 1, 2, 4? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The commandment against murder does not apply to God because God does not commit murder. Even in (5) when God killed you and you are dead to God, you have been judged and given due process by God, you were not murdered.

This is disanalogous to allowing evil. An analogous version of your example would be: “Would you make a car that works fine but you knew someone else could come and mess it up?”. — Bob Ross

Are you referring to the story of Adam and Eve? This story is nonsense! The God you are defending is out of discussion since He is less than you. Adam and Eve were put in a sinful situation in which God knew in advance that they would sin! They were also lied to by the snake/Satan! And people are here, part of them suffering for no rational reason. What are their faults? Why should they be held here for the sin that the Parents did? Does any of these make any sense to you?

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that those things are not subject to change. — Bob Ross

Yes, but in a perfect creation, all changes are perfect as well. So there could be a creation in which wrongdoing/sin does not exist within. Our universe is not perfect. A perfect God does not make such a thing.

But this makes your argument weaker; because then perfection isn’t about goodness necessarily, since God could create being without pain or pleasure—e.g., a rock. — Bob Ross

Yes, perfection is not about goodness or evilness. It is about doing things always right, whether good, evil, or neutral.

A masochist doesn’t prefer evil; they does mis-hierarchize or misunderstand the goods. — Bob Ross

No, they just like pain in a certain part of their body. And, they don't misunderstand the good.

Specifically, they will in accord with getting a euphoric high where pain is the means and not the end. To truly prefer evil, is to will it as an end. — Bob Ross

A masochist is not a perfect evil creature.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. "Is Real" = exists objectively. "Exists" may be subjective or objective. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The first part is concise. I think the second part should be "Exists" = is either subjective or objective, unless you clarify why you used "may".

Yes, I knew you were having that discussion with Bob Ross, and it was confusing me because I didn't understand your terms. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Ok, I hope we are on the same page right now, regarding the definitions.

Appearance of bear when there is no bear: subjective. In your terms: exists, but not real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The confusion is real in the sense that it affects you somehow. But I distinguish between this real and the real in my first comment. All our experiences are real in this sense.

Imagining a unicorn: ditto — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Imagining a unicorn is another activity.

Seeing the bear which is really in the woods: objective. In your terms: exists, and is real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, the bear exists and is real, given the definition of "exists" and "is real" in my first comment.

I hope I've got that straight! — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Please let me know if you are happy with what I said. Otherwise, let me know.

One of the things I am asking you is this: What would you have decreed if you were instructing the Israelites? — Leontiskos

The difficulty in this question is that:

1. It shifts the discussion from what a perfect being would do to what a nuanced, particular human would do; and

2. We don’t have to have knowledge of what the best choice is to know some of the bad choices. I can say that a pizza-lover does not throwaway a perfectly good pizza without speaking to what a pizza-lover’s best choice is in terms of what to do with it. — Bob Ross

I agree with (2), but I am not asking you what the best choice is. I am asking what you would do, and the implication is that you must be able to provide a better option than the one you are criticizing, not that you must be able to provide the best option. If you cannot provide a better option than the thing you criticize, then your criticism will be otiose or at least severely mitigated. Granted, not-acting is always an option, and so you can object to some action with the mere alternative of not acting at all, but in the case of the Amalekites not-acting may not be a plausible alternative.

If I had to answer, I would say that I would have told the Israelites to focus on themselves and ignore the immoralities of the Amalekites: they don’t have a duty to sacrifice their own people in just wars against abominable nations. I think it is a, e.g., just war to conquer North Korean but I wouldn’t advocate for the US to start WWIII over it. — Bob Ross

In the first place I would point out that the Amalekites lived near the Israelites and were a threat, so in that sense it is a bit different than the U.S. and North Korea. In the second place, in the Biblical mind truly abominable acts are not self-contained. They literally corrupt the earth and the world and empower the demonic presences that are being worshipped through the acts. For this reason the libertarian approach requires a different understanding of reality, where abominations do not pollute or affect the wider world.

If I had to decree the just war, then I would say to:

1. Eliminate the enemy combatants while limiting innocent and non-combatant civilians;

2. Assimilate any of the people that they can without assuming significant risk to their own sovereignty and stability;

3. Segregate those who cannot be assimilated into their own areas and give them the freedom to leave (and go somewhere else) if they want;

4. Give as much aid as feasible to those segregated.

I would hold a significant weight to the in-group over the out-group; so I wouldn’t probably decree any commandments to sacrifice one’s own people to free another people.

Likewise, those who are not assimilated would not be citizens of Israel; so they would, in necessary, be left to themselves if Israel cannot afford to help them; and this could be all the way up to starvation, disease, and death. — Bob Ross

Okay, that approach makes sense. Thanks for providing that. :up:

Yeah, but wouldn’t you agree it would be immoral what they did since it is directly intentional? I’m not saying they would have had this level of a sophistication in their ethics back then; but we know it to be immoral. — Bob Ross

I would say that it is immoral given certain conditions. For example, if the Amalekites and their children were not demonic then the act was immoral; if it was not a delegation of God's legitimate prerogatives then the act was immoral; etc.

The other question here is that if we know it to be immoral but they did not, then was it immoral? We might then say that it was objectively immoral but not subjectively wrong, similar to the case where someone breaks a law that they were not aware of. But even on something like the pedagogical approach God could not say, "Perform this act. It is not objectively immoral" (because this would make God a liar). makes a good point about Samuel as the author, and about the priority of the Pentateuch; but if we supposed that the literal command truly came from God, would it be permissible for God to pedagogically recommend that Israel carry out an act that is objectively but not subjectively immoral? It's an interesting question.

This interpretation seems to superficially reinterpret the text though; given that it explicitly details directly intentionally killing children. Wouldn’t this interpretation jeopardize the entire Bible? If someone can reinterpret what is obviously meant one way as another, then why can’t I about anything therein? — Bob Ross

On one reading it would superficially reinterpret the text. On the reading that provided it would not. The sort of question here asks whether we are permitted to interpret these sorts of post-Pentateuch texts as including the perspective of a fallible author, such as Samuel. I don't think there is anything de facto impossible about doing this, even on the presuppositions of historical theology. Many of the various known contradictions in the Bible (including those I mentioned in to Carlos) have to do with the perspective of the speaker. Only if we make the highest canonical source fallible do we forfeit Biblical inerrancy or strong Biblical authority, which in the Old Testament context would be to make the Pentateuch fallible in this way.

This is the most plausible out of them all, and is the one Aquinas and Craig takes. Again, though, the bullet here is that one has to hold that murder is either not the direct intentional killing of an innocent person or that murder is not always unjust. That is a necessary consequence of this view. — Bob Ross

Sort of. The thing I think you're missing here is the idea that God is not said to murder even though he is the judge of life and death. For example, if there is an angel of death or a "grim reaper" who works at the behest of God, is the angel of death a murderer? Or is he just doing his job? Or one could put it differently and ask whether the fact that God allows death within the world makes him a murderer. Theological traditions do not hold that God or the angel of death are properly involved in murder in these ways. On this point, I see the crux not so much in the definition of murder but in the question of whether God can delegate his power over life and death.

This [idea of demons] is an interesting one I am admittedly not very familiar with: I’ll have to think about that one. — Bob Ross

I think it is definitely part of the Biblical context, but it is not altogether clear to me how this affects the Amalekite children's "right to life." I would want to begin with the question of whether one who is demonic via demonic rites ceases to be human, and then whether their children also cease to be human (in the sense that they lose their presumptive right to life).

This has to be immoral: it would conflate culpability and innocence with the individual and group. — Bob Ross

Well, even on a modern understanding there is commission, there is "aiding and abetting," there is failing to oppose someone in your midst who is involved in commission, etc. So the idea that groups rather than mere individuals are responsible for abominable, public acts is supportable. I think the counterargument lies in the idea that a child or especially an infant does not count as part of the group.

Yeah, that’s true. I am not sure how to interpret the texts. Maybe it is all spiritual lessons; but then what isn’t and what is the lesson? — Bob Ross

Over the years I have come to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the Bible, because it does mirror real life. How one is to resolve the difficult tensions and contradictions that arise in life is not obvious, and in the Bible we see people grappling with this same difficulty. There are some deeply interesting writings of J. G. Hamann that have begun to be translated into the English. Hamann was a highly intelligent Christian contemporary of Immanuel Kant, and he was famous for cutting to pieces Kant's cut-and-dried understanding of reality by recourse to philological and Biblical allusions. Schemas such as Kant's tend to oversimplify complex realities, and although Hamann and the Bible are far from simple, they nevertheless reflect the complexity and chaos of real life.

I mean, one of the theological issues undergirding your probing questions is the issue of Biblical inerrancy and how that is supposed to be understood. In one sense the Bible is not inerrant given that there are clear contradictions. What's curious is that the authors and the community were aware of these contradictions and they didn't find them problematic, and from this one would generally deduce that the texts neither aim at nor presuppose inerrancy in that literalistic or top-level sense. This is why what Carlos said about Samuel's authorship and fallibility is not a new idea in theological communities.

Related to these points, it is good to be humble when scrutinizing a text that has a sacred or divine pedigree, because it is very easy to impose personal idioms. Or perhaps put it this way: the more certain we are that something comes from God, the less sure we are about our negative judgments regarding it. I am not faulting your basic method, but rather noting that anyone who approaches a text as sacred will be very receptive to interpretive subtleties. This is because to believe that a being who is infinitely beyond you is communicating with you is to be open to semantic and and metaphysical possibilities that would usually be excluded. One's expectations of depth and overflowing meanings (i.e. being polysemic or plurivocal) increase in proportion to the perceived profundity of their interlocutor.

I am working on an alternative that I will share with you when it is ready to hear your thoughts. — Bob Ross

Okay, sounds good. :up:

@Leontiskos @Bob Ross

On one reading it would superficially reinterpret the text. On the reading that ↪BitconnectCarlos provided it would not. The sort of question here asks whether we are permitted to interpret these sorts of post-Pentateuch texts as including the perspective of a fallible author, such as Samuel. — Leontiskos

I remember the writing in bSamuel as brilliant and capturing what can happen even when legitimate prophecy is granted to the crooked timber of humanity. I think it would be a mistake and a superficial reading to decontextualize the command to kill the Amalekites and use that as an injunction against God. The command is given by Samuel, speaking on behalf of God.

Even though Samuel is a legitimate prophet, he's far from a passive conduit of the divine will. He's constantly setting up Saul for failure. Samuel is irascible and continually seeks influence and power for himself. Presumably, if Saul fails, Saul can be dismissed and Samuel can exert authority again. Samuel is a fascinating character and quite complex. He is critical of both the kingship and the people. His speeches in Samuel remind me of a libertarian warning against the dangers of big government. It is unclear how much of this is genuine ideological commitment versus a desire to maintain influence.

Martin Buber argues that Samuel mistakes his own will for God's, which I imagine would be easy to do for a man who selects kings and possesses a special relationship with the divine. The divine voice in this book is more removed than in earlier books.

In Torah, you'll hear, e.g., "And God said to Abraham...." In the book of Samuel, this doesn't happen, and instead, it's Samuel telling Saul to put Amalek under the ban. The key here is Samuel. He could be correctly and perfectly conveying God's will, or he could be mistaken, or he could be deceiving. The clarity of Torah, where we see God's words openly dictated, is no longer present in Samuel.

For example, there is a constant vacillation in the Bible between the idea that everything is according to God's will (and therefore even evil things are brought about by God), and the idea that God does not do or will evil. I think that's a natural vacillation that can't be overcome easily or quickly, and the sacred texts inevitably reflect this reality. — Leontiskos

Yes. I suspect the former idea is earlier, the latter idea (seen in Chronicles) is later. Biblical authors struggle to deal with this. Each view has its strengths and weaknesses. I find the notion that God allows evil to fester and build until it's ripe for destruction to be a fascinating and non-modern one. My favorite theodicy is Job. We can engage in apologetics, but ultimately, I believe the existence of evil and suffering in this world is beyond human comprehension.

Are you referring to the story of Adam and Eve? This story is nonsense!

I am unsure how you got to there from what I said: I was saying that God can allow evil—that’s not the same as doing evil. Maybe under your view God cannot allow evil either, but allowing evil and doing evil are still different.

I don’t think the Adam and Eve story is about historical events.

 Adam and Eve were put in a sinful situation in which God knew in advance that they would sin!

Well, that’s true of all of us. God knows ahead of time whether we will sin or not as well as knows how it will end; this doesn’t mean that God is doing evil by allowing you to make your own choices. I think you are thinking of God as if He is in time like us. A being out of time knowing everything that will happen is very different. One of the beauties of absolute goodness—of God—is that He transforms, in the final result, our evil into good. He does not make us do evil, but when we do the totality of the result of His creation over time ends with good coming out of it so that it did not happen in vain.

Yes, but in a perfect creation, all changes are perfect as well. So there could be a creation in which wrongdoing/sin does not exist within

Do you deny the existence of persons? Persons can cause evil in a perfect creation that originally had perfect changes!

I agree with (2), but I am not asking you what the best choice is. I am asking what you would do, and the implication is that you must be able to provide a better option than the one you are criticizing

That’s fair. I think letting them starve, all else being equal, is better than murdering them.

 For example, if the Amalekites and their children were not demonic then the act was immoral

But couldn’t God just drive them out? Why would God murder a child when He could just command the demon to leave the child’s body? Jesus drives out demons all the time in the NT.

This is analogous to if you could snap your fingers to cure this child of some deadly virus that needs to be contained but instead you execute them to solve the problem—how is that morally permissible?

God to pedagogically recommend that Israel carry out an act that is objectively but not subjectively immoral?

I would say no; for example, a judge that knows it is wrong to steal cannot advise to a citizen to steal irregardless if the citizen themselves understand it is a crime. (We are assuming here) God knows it is immoral; so He cannot command it.

Many of the various known contradictions in the Bible (including those I mentioned in 
↪response
 to Carlos) have to do with the perspective of the speaker

That’s interesting, I will have to take a deeper look into that.

For example, if there is an angel of death or a "grim reaper" who works at the behest of God, is the angel of death a murderer?

Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.

If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people.

Well, even on a modern understanding there is commission, there is "aiding and abetting," there is failing to oppose someone in your midst who is involved in commission, etc. So the idea that groups rather than mere individuals are responsible for abominable, public acts is supportable

Those examples you gave are relative to the individual so they are not examples that support group culpability. E.g., a person or group that aids or abets are culpable because they themselves did something that is involved with that practice—an innocent person who did not aid or abet but happens to be a part of the group would not get charged unless they demonstrate they themselves did aid and abet.

Over the years I have come to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the Bible, because it does mirror real life. How one is to resolve the difficult tensions and contradictions that arise in life is not obvious, and in the Bible we see people grappling with this same difficulty

Fair enough. What do you think of the Adam and Eve story?

Is your position, then, that Samual lied about God commanding the slaughter of all the Amalekites?

I am unsure how you got to there from what I said — Bob Ross

Well, you believe in NT, and within it, Adam is cited.

I was saying that God can allow evil—that’s not the same as doing evil. — Bob Ross

I am saying a perfect good God cannot create an imperfect good creation, wherein doing evil is possible. A perfect good God can only create a perfect good creation. So your God is imperfect since the creation is imperfect.

Maybe under your view God cannot allow evil either, but allowing evil and doing evil are still different. — Bob Ross

No, under my definition, a perfect God can only do things right! He cannot do wrong. If God does wrong like imperfect creatures do, then He is like imperfect creatures. I also don't equate evil with wrong.

I don’t think the Adam and Eve story is about historical events. — Bob Ross

So you don't believe in NT?

Well, that’s true of all of us. God knows ahead of time whether we will sin or not as well as knows how it will end; this doesn’t mean that God is doing evil by allowing you to make your own choices. I think you are thinking of God as if He is in time like us. — Bob Ross

I have a challenge for such a God. If one day, by chance, I meet your God in Heaven, while being allowed to wish only one thing, then the Forknwoeldge of God about what I am going to do would be my only wish. I do the opposite of whatever God says according to His foreknowledge then!

A being out of time knowing everything that will happen is very different. One of the beauties of absolute goodness—of God—is that He transforms, in the final result, our evil into good. He does not make us do evil, but when we do the totality of the result of His creation over time ends with good coming out of it so that it did not happen in vain. — Bob Ross

Evil cannot be transformed into good. Are you thinking that humans can live in Utopia one day without God's intervention?

Do you deny the existence of persons? Persons can cause evil in a perfect creation that originally had perfect changes! — Bob Ross

No, I am not denying the person. I am saying perfect creatures can only do right.

Is your position, then, that Samual lied about God commanding the slaughter of all the Amalekites? — Bob Ross

Buber thought Samuel was confusing his human impulses with God's will. Rashi, OTOH, does take it as a literal command to slaughter all of Amalek.

@Bob Ross
@Leontiskos
@Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.

If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people. — Bob Ross

In previous posts, I had discussions with you and with Gregory of the Beard of Ockham on the definition of death.

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", .... — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I would like to add another description of death to the list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.

In (1), (2), (4), you are dead to the world, but you are not dead to God, even if God appeared to have murdered, killed, and made you dead. If you are not dead to God, then you have not been murdered, killed, or made dead by God. — GregW

The commandment against murder does not apply to God because God does not commit murder. Even in (5) when God killed you and you are dead to God, you have been judged and given due process by God, you were not murdered. — GregW

Bob, your definition of murder, the direct intentional killing of an innocent person applies only to you, to me, and to other people. It does not apply to God. If you are innocent, you are alive to God, then God have many options to keeping you alive anywhere, on earth as well as in heaven.

I think it would be a mistake and a superficial reading to decontextualize the command to kill the Amalekites and use that as an injunction against God. The command is given by Samuel, speaking on behalf of God. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Martin Buber argues that Samuel mistakes his own will for God's, which I imagine would be easy to do for a man who selects kings and possesses a special relationship with the divine. The divine voice in this book is more removed than in earlier books.

In Torah, you'll hear, e.g., "And God said to Abraham...." In the book of Samuel, this doesn't happen, and instead, it's Samuel telling Saul to put Amalek under the ban. The key here is Samuel. He could be correctly and perfectly conveying God's will, or he could be mistaken, or he could be deceiving. The clarity of Torah, where we see God's words openly dictated, is no longer present in Samuel. — BitconnectCarlos

Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Yes. I suspect the former idea is earlier, the latter idea (seen in Chronicles) is later. Biblical authors struggle to deal with this. Each view has its strengths and weaknesses. I find the notion that God allows evil to fester and build until it's ripe for destruction to be a fascinating and non-modern one. My favorite theodicy is Job. We can engage in apologetics, but ultimately, I believe the existence of evil and suffering in this world is beyond human comprehension. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

That’s fair. I think letting them starve, all else being equal, is better than murdering them. — Bob Ross

Okay, understood.

But couldn’t God just drive them out? Why would God murder a child when He could just command the demon to leave the child’s body? Jesus drives out demons all the time in the NT. — Bob Ross

Sure, except that the case in question is not a matter of possession. It is not a demon inhabiting a non-demonic inhabitant, but rather something which is inherently demonic. This is so because the sexual cultic rites were actually meant to create a bond with certain demons through worship, and to result in the procreation of a demonic race. The demonic attachments that Jesus encountered are considered different in that way. So the cases are different, but as I said earlier, I am still not sure how to "objectively" assess the "rights" of such beings.

I would say no; for example, a judge that knows it is wrong to steal cannot advise to a citizen to steal irregardless if the citizen themselves understand it is a crime. (We are assuming here) God knows it is immoral; so He cannot command it. — Bob Ross

This all gets a bit tricky, and it may take us too far afield. Nevertheless, I think you are on safe ground when you talk about commands proper. Even if it is generally permissible to advise in that way, it is probably not permissible to command in that way.

That’s interesting, I will have to take a deeper look into that. — Bob Ross

Yes, and I think it is something that our Protestant culture misses. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura has a tendency to see all of Scripture as completely equal (and would thus be unable to "single out" the Pentateuch in the way that @BitconnectCarlos is able to do). Granted, in Catholicism you get some of that too, but it is strongest in Protestantism and that is our culture context here in the U.S.

Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.

If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people. — Bob Ross

I think the problem here is a sort of reductio. God and the Angel of Death are not generally deemed murderers, and therefore if one maintains a notion in which they are murders then an abnormal semantics is in play.

There are different approaches here. Some would say that God simply does not murder, some would say that no one is innocent before God, etc. The general problem is the negative connotation of murder. For example, the Angel of Death does take life, but because it is his job to do so he is not transgressing in the process. Not even in a mythological sense would it make sense to bring the Angel of Death before the judge and accuse him of murder.

Those examples you gave are relative to the individual so they are not examples that support group culpability. E.g., a person or group that aids or abets are culpable because they themselves did something that is involved with that practice—an innocent person who did not aid or abet but happens to be a part of the group would not get charged unless they demonstrate they themselves did aid and abet. — Bob Ross

But the contention is that everyone who is part of the group is implicated, and that no one can just "happen" to be part of the group. That's how human communities tend to work. There aren't really communities that one only "happens" to be a part of, given that mutual influence is always occurring within a community. This is precisely why the one who expels an evildoer from the community is praised: because they have protected the group from contamination.

Fr. Stephen De Young must be in my YouTube algorithm now, because I stumbled upon <this short video on messiness>. I think his advice is salutary. Granted, his advice will be more directly applicable to Christians, but a reflection of it still holds for those such as yourself who are investigating Christianity or religion. The key point is that, wherever you do end up, you must eventually be aware of the complexities of reality that we are not always consciously aware of. In some sense an argument against injustice can sidestep that advice, but in another sense it cannot, and I think @BitconnectCarlos' points highlight why it cannot be altogether sidestepped.

It seems like, then, that aspect of the scripture was not Divinely Inspired. Maybe what God revealed to Samuel originally was; but I don't see how this view is consistent with Divine Inspiration.

Well, you believe in NT, and within it, Adam is cited.

I don’t, and this OP doesn’t suggest that. I am sympathetic to the NT though.

I am saying a perfect good God cannot create an imperfect good creatio
…
No, under my definition, a perfect God can only do things right! 

Again, you are confusing God willing evil and doing evil. Persons in creation would have the free will to do evil in virtue of merely having it.

I have a challenge for such a God

I don’t understand how that challenges the view of God I exposed before.

Evil cannot be transformed into good.

Evil is a privation; privations can produce good. Missing a limb is a privation, but this privation can produce courage, kindness, a renewed enjoyment/respect of life, etc.

}

Bob, your definition of murder, the direct intentional killing of an innocent person applies only to you, to me, and to other people. It does not apply to God

Logically, it would apply to any circumstance where an innocent person is directly intentionally killed. God is not exempt: you would have to redefine murder to support your case. I am still waiting for a definition of murder from you.

The closest I see to one is here:

(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.

To cease to exist to God is just for God to no longer will one’s existence, since we actively get our being from Him, and so this would be the ultimate death of ourselves as soul. Again, this is not what death means in the context of murder: we are talking about the death of a body.