Missfit, my agro is due to remembering the multiple prior attempts I've made to educate those very same posters of the "tuo quoque" fallacy who've committed it in the past, yet seeing they STILL persist in using it, as if they really don't accept that it's childish reasoning.
It's almost like they were never raised by a Mom who responded to their, "But Billy's doing it, too!" objection with, "Well, if Billy jumped off a tall bridge, would you do it, too?" Most of us learned not to rely on such childish logic when children, so hence my frustration. On the other hand, this is an ex-JW board, and if people had learned about logical fallacies, they likely would've spotted their prevalent usage in WT and Awake!, and wouldn't be reading here now.
However, you did note that I provided a link to those readers who may have never considered it before, so newbies can learn of the fallacy and hopefully promise to never be caught trying to use it as if it's a valid argument. That's what I was getting at when I said people need to practice applying scrutiny to their OWN words, asking themselves if there's any possible fallacy that they are about to commit BEFORE posting.
Granted, analyzing other's words for fallacies is helpful as a step in the process of learning, but ultimately the goal is to apply it to one's OWN thoughts, since ultimately only we pay the price for errors in our own logic (which should be self-apparent on an ex-JW board, where almost everyone here was hoodwinked).
Caliber said- Are we on an equal bases with God so as to issue an ultimatum?
Yes.
Caliber said- How can you be sure that you do indeed have an equal avantage point with God or indeed that your moral compass is right in demanding action now?
As said by others, the Bible itself says so when it says we were created in God's image; but even more importantly, Adam and Eve ate the wisdom-bestowing fruit, and God later admitted that humans HAD in fact become "like Gods", i.e. possessing the wisdom of Gods, (Hebrew word is 'Elohim', a plural term referring to the Divine Counsel in Heaven, chaired by Jehovah who leads a team of angels). Now possessing the stolen wisdom of Gods, remember that's why God later blocked access to the Tree of Life to Adam and Eve, since mana need only eat fruit from TOL and would live forever, thus completely becoming "like a God" (i.e. immortal AND wise).
Now if a reader missed that, remember too that after the Flood, God granted man Divine authority to enforce and punish other humans on cases involving matters of life and death, and even to render capital punishment. God delivers a mini-pep talk in Genesis 9, reminding humans that they are up to the task of making such weighty decisions, reminding humans that in Gods image they were made.
So God Himself admits TWICE in the Bible that humans are capable of making moral decisions.
Oh, the Isaiah grovelling you pointed out simply reveals yet another Bible contradiction, where it claims all possible combinations and expects the readers to suppress the cognitive dissonance, usually accomplished by 'blaming the victim' and feeling as it one is just too stoopid (sic) to figure it out, an attitude that's easy to adopt after the same book tells what an igorant maggot the reader is, compared to God.
BTW, someone above claimed God is a "free moral agent". Sorry, that's not what the Bible indicates, since God is limited by scriptural passages which claim God cannot act against his own nature, i.e. cannot sin (i.e. violate his prior expressed Divine Will), cannot lie, etc, and God even enters into multiple contracts and covenants with mankind (eg Noahide, Mosaic, Abrahamic covenants). Fact is, God violates that trait in the Flood account, violating his prior expressed will to create humans, by wiping them out. God's acknowledgment of regret in Genesis 6 is an example of God violating His own prior expressed Divine Will, AKA sinning.
Also, God enters contracts, and by definition, a contract is a limitation of one's free will, since one agrees NOT to violate the terms of a contract. So entering a covenant is a voluntary limitation of one's free will.
If fact, killing humans in a tsunami in 2004 is arguably close to violating the spirit of the 'Rainbow Covenant' of Genesis 9, wherein God promised not to ever flood the Earth again due to "the evil thoughts in the hearts of man", creating the rainbow as a covenant marker to remind himself of the promise to attend anger management. There was no need, since for the first time in history, God gave Noah and sons the authority to punish bloodshed (rather than God punishing by floods). Types like Pat Robertson are forgetting about their own Bible's words at Genesis 9, when they claim God is punishing mankind for sin by tsunami (unless they're claiming that God only killed 250k, and not ALL humanity).
BTW, first-century Xian Apologetists were quick to point out a loophole in the language of the 'Rainbow Covenant', where God's promise was to not destroy humanity again via drowning in a flood: hence, the upcoming Apocalypse of Armageddon was said to involve massive death by FIRE and other destructive forces (just no drowning).
Adam
