It depends on the context. As a consequence of moral wrongdoings by a society, it does not seem to me to be repugnant any more than punishing an individual for a crime is repugnant.

If the genocide happens "just because" then it would be repugnant. I've addressed this distinction before:

How is it against anything the Bible says? Be specific. Do you know for a fact that God will never command a person to be the next Moses? How have you come to such a conclusion?

Were there different morals back then which justified some pretty cruel commands by God?

I don't mean within your framework. A moral relativist can label something 'morally superior' it's just that what they mean is 'I like this better'.

I think calling it meaningless is too strong, it just means something different from what you or I do. (Presumably you'd agree with me that 'morally superior' means 'closer to the objective/absolute moral standard').

You receive a vision you believe to be of divine origins that instructs you to kill your family or all of humanity will suffer immeasurably. You cannot attribute your experience to anything you've ever experienced previously or anything you've ever heard of others experiencing. Immediately after it is over you feel as if you've experienced something miraculous. In the vision, the being makes it clear that it must be done despite any (obvious) objections you may have.

Do you obey?

Why not?

We aren't in the absence of absolute moral standards in this instance. Our whole argument is based upon the assumption that God is providing our moral standards.

It doesn't mean he couldn't and in an instant. You're selling God's powers short here.

Can you elaborate?

You're still not fixing anything. On what basis am I concluding that this vision is attached to reality in some way?

I can turn the hypothetical back around to you and posit some sort of spiritual experience completely other than what you've ever experienced before. How would you respond to this abstract thing that is far removed from anything that you can compare it to?

Aaron -

Please treat this as it's intended. The stipulation is that for [compelling reason] you genuinely believe you have received an instruction from the specific god you worship.

We all know the answer is that you'd do as instructed (I would too, if that helps). Stonewalling just makes you look either stubborn or outright dishonest.

Same reason the time you "had a thought that was not your own" was interpreted as a message from god. Just instead of being told to go talk to the person, you're now supposed to kill your family.

By definition

See the side conversation with Bunny. I'm not sure how you're asking me to respond to the question. If you're asking me about a personal view, then I've already given it. If you're asking about a viewpoint from the perspective of an absolute moral standard, the answer is obvious.

Maybe. But until such a time arises, I consider the this to be akin to the scenario that Aytumious is positing, to the point that I don't really have a frame of reference to even begin to understand how I would respond to such a situation.

On what basis would I conclude that killing the Palestinians is something that had been commanded by God?

The difference is that there the previous (and only) experience did not instruct me to do anything incongruous with what I had already believed I was supposed to be doing at the time.

If I had that type of experience with regards to killing family, it would be disregarded as a just a weird thought.

I don't think you understand the theological implications of these stipulations. I'll go back to asking you what the universe would look like if the fundamental forces were missing from it. In order for me to accept the premise, I have to abandon so many theological structures that what I have left has little relationship to what I currently believe.

I don't know if this is true. I literally don't know how I would respond under a completely foreign structure of thinking.

Even God is baffled by your responses to this scenario.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that absolute morality exists, but that it has no real bearing on our decisions since the best that we can do is use our own judgement in determining what that absolute morality happens to entail. Therefore, despite believing in absolute morality, you have no choice but to behave exactly as a moral relativist does and choose the actions that seem most wise from your own subjective position.

It's only baffling because you think that receiving a message from God is somehow supposed to happen in the absence of other thoughts.

It's not a premise, it's a stipulation of a hypothetical scenario. So to repair the analogy, you would be asking me "What would the universe would look like if the fundamental forces were missing from it?" and I would be answering "The same." When the dogs in the street know that's simply not true.

It isn't completely foreign, and you are flying in the face of basic facts of Judeo-Christian history by claiming that it is.

Are you really trying to sell us that you might genuinely believe you were receiving instruction from your god and not know whether to obey? Please.

It really depends on how much connection is possible between the absolute morality and our understanding of it. For example, if it turns out that torturing babies is wrong, and our moral intuitions are guided to the conclusion that torturing babies is wrong, then there is a very real sense in which the absolute morality did bear upon the decision not to torture babies.

How else am I supposed to make a decision? I certainly can't act upon full knowledge of the absolute moral standard because I don't have that. I'm limited to what I know.

What you're really highlighting here is the is-ought fallacy again. The absolute morality directs us on how we ought to behave. But how we actually behave is based on what we understand about how we ought to behave.

Quality summation.

He's a moral relativist in fancy dress.

Uhhh... what's the difference?

Except that I'm not answering the question at all. I'm saying that I don't know what I would do or how I would respond.

I'm telling you that I don't know *if* I would obey (I don't know what I would do). If I were somehow in that situation, I think it's reasonable to say that I might conclude that I *should* obey, but that doesn't say anything about whether I would follow through with anything. And this is where the "I don't know" comes from. I don't know what I would do.

Heh. A premise is either accepted or rejected. A stipulation is either acknowledged or ignored. So you can either answer the question or ignore it - you have no third option here.

Right, but this is stupefyingly nitty, and you know it's stupefyingly nitty. The point is that you acknowledge you should obey - we all know you're a sinner (ie, a habitual disobeyer of god's will); that's a stipulation of Christian theology. The point is that disobedience of god's direct command to murder your family is no less a sin than your disobedience of god's general command to love your enemy - no?

I'm starting to think that cliffs picture had a different meaning itt..

Maybe it meant jump while you can

I still don't get the difference, but whatever.

I thought the question was whether I would obey. And I've answered that as fully as I can (I don't know whether I would obey). So if that's not the point, then I don't know what the point is.

If the point is to say something about my theology, then I don't see how a point has been made because in order for me to "acknowledge" the premise, I would have to abandon much of my theology.

Well i figured that and its a part of whats interesting. Gods objective morality would have to fit your morality (at least at the extreme ends) in order for you to accept it. Otherwise you would dismiss God as not God.

If you can say what the God of the universe has to have as his objective morality otherwise you wont see him as God. Well idk but...

Really? I'd suspect the onset of schizophrenia and check into a mental hospital. On the other hand, if I genuinely believed it was God giving me the winning lottery numbers along with the command to use the winnings to feed the hungry, I'd comply.

Why concern yourself with 'the point'? Just answer the question - should you obey the commands of your god? The question really is that simple.

On what other hand? The stipulation is that for a compelling reason you genuinely believe it to be the case. Do you check yourself into a mental hospital whenever you suspect you may need new car tires?