Would You Kill Someone if God Told You To?

[Greater-London]

1. We could change the word "one" to mean four, but the concept of "one" exists regardless of what anybody thinks. Science and philosophy are perspective-based and inherently unobjective. Maths and logic aren't. The angles of a triangle will always sum 180 degrees, one plus one will always be two, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius will always be 2pi, etc, regardless of what anybody thinks or perceives. If God made a four-sided triangle, it wouldn't be a triangle. He could call it a triangle, but it would not meet the criteria for the shape we currently call a triangle.

2. If God can make and break the rules as we see fit, so can any rational agent.

3. I don't believe in objective morality.

4. If a God allows cancer to exist because they're too lazy to fix it, they really aren't all that loving.

1. But if God is omnipresent then surely he made it so that one plus one equals two, the circumference of a circle is always 2pi? as such if God wants a triangle to be four sides then this new shape would be a triangle, as the creator he will always set the criteria. I know its ridiculous I know its illogical, In fact I don't know why I bother saying it. However if hes omnipotent then what he says goes and everything else is just filler.

2. Yes but presuming their is only one God and they are flawless. If this is the case then they are the only agent who can break the rules and always be right in doing so. Unlike others who may break the rules and then be wrong.

3. Cool, but then you can only argue that God's decision to murder someone is subjectively bad. As such the whole dilemma of whether or not you should do something because you think God is behaving in a "bad way" goes out the window. His morality if he is all loving will be objectively better.

4. I never said they allowed it to exist because they were to lazy to fix it, perhaps its a test (God has set them in the past). Or perhaps God thinks that humans are not deserving of living in a perfect world?

[Sun Wukong]

He told Abraham to kill his son, I mean I know he stopped last second but he still ordered it.

If you read between the lines then you would see that that was a test of Abraham's faith.

He went through with it with Jephthah.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

He told Abraham to kill his son, I mean I know he stopped last second but he still ordered it.

If you read between the lines then you would see that that was a test of Abraham's faith.

That was quite a shit test, IMO.

[Greater-London]

But if you were omnipotent, you'd find a way to relieve him of his sexual urges without neutering him?

Yes but then I'm also not all knowing perhaps the suffering of neutering benefits the dog in someway? I will now give up arguing this point, because its pretty hard.

All im saying is that if you believe God exists then you can't have them restricted by human understanding, morality, or logic. If your restricting them through those things then your clearly not a believer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

4. I never said they allowed it to exist because they were to lazy to fix it, perhaps its a test (God has set them in the past). Or perhaps God thinks that humans are not deserving of living in a perfect world?

A test of faith by taking a human life, really?

Also, quite nice contradiction to your first statements that "God is all loving"... right.

[Cyyro]

He told Abraham to kill his son, I mean I know he stopped last second but he still ordered it.

If you read between the lines then you would see that that was a test of Abraham's faith.

Yeah I know but the guy said that God would never tell someone to kill someone, and He told Abraham to kill Isaac, so actually, he did tell someone to kill someone.

[Zottistan]

1. We could change the word "one" to mean four, but the concept of "one" exists regardless of what anybody thinks. Science and philosophy are perspective-based and inherently unobjective. Maths and logic aren't. The angles of a triangle will always sum 180 degrees, one plus one will always be two, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius will always be 2pi, etc, regardless of what anybody thinks or perceives. If God made a four-sided triangle, it wouldn't be a triangle. He could call it a triangle, but it would not meet the criteria for the shape we currently call a triangle.

2. If God can make and break the rules as we see fit, so can any rational agent.

3. I don't believe in objective morality.

4. If a God allows cancer to exist because they're too lazy to fix it, they really aren't all that loving.

1. But if God is omnipresent then surely he made it so that one plus one equals two, the circumference of a circle is always 2pi? as such if God wants a triangle to be four sides then this new shape would be a triangle, as the creator he will always set the criteria. I know its ridiculous I know its illogical, In fact I don't know why I bother saying it. However if hes omnipotent then what he says goes and everything else is just filler.

If He created a four sided triangle and called it a triangle, the new shape would be a triangle in name, but it would no longer be the shape we know as a triangle. It would be similar to two people swapping names.

EDIT: There's a line between what a word means and the word itself. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

2. Yes but presuming their is only one God and they are flawless. If this is the case then they are the only agent who can break the rules and always be right in doing so. Unlike others who may break the rules and then be wrong.

You can't be wrong, or right, about a subjective matter, no matter how flawless you are. If God said R'n'B was the best genre of music, that wouldn't make it objectively true, because music preference is entirely subjective and there's no objective standard to measure the goodness of music, or moral action, by. You could say God is the standard by which we measure the moral goodness of an answer, but all that ultimately means is that we're treating God's subjective view as objective.

3. Cool, but then you can only argue that God's decision to murder someone is subjectively bad. As such the whole dilemma of whether or not you should do something because you think God is behaving in a "bad way" goes out the window. His morality if he is all loving will be objectively better.

I don't argue that it was bad. I argue that it's not something an all-loving, all powerful being would do.

4. I never said they allowed it to exist because they were to lazy to fix it, perhaps its a test (God has set them in the past). Or perhaps God thinks that humans are not deserving of living in a perfect world?

"I love you, and that is why I have to kill you."

If you want to give your kids a test of character or teach them a lesson, you make them earn their own money for their video games or punish them for bad grades. You don't give them cancer.

[Distruzio]

No hes not somehow better, he is better, hes supposed to be flawless. If this is the case then if we cant understand him "Because I say so" IS always good enough because its impossible for him to be wrong.

Perfection doesn't always imply flawless behavior, especially in the case of God. To assert otherwise is to ignore the numerous critiques Jesus and the Father accepted time and again throughout the Bible. To assert otherwise is to ignore the very real struggle individuals depicted in the Bible had, and were free to have, with the presence of God. He is perfect, but that perfection also includes the perfected ability to recognize when creation has a point and the humility to accede to that point. That's what makes God, in the Christian sense, not so big an asshole.

If he is flawless and, by definition, your deity is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, then why would he not prevent the event of killing someone from happening instead of asking me to do something he can do?

You're missing the point with this line of reasoning. What you should be asking is, "if He is flawless and, by definition, ... all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, then why would He permit life to exist at all?"

The answer is because buddy is kinda humble. Life exists because perfection is useless when one is perfectly alone. Death exists because perfection is useless when one is perfectly un-alone. There has to be an opportunity for growth and appreciation - otherwise perfection is perfectly stagnant. So God is humble enough to allow imperfection to exist alongside His own perfection. You could make the case that this isn't humility but, rather, an example of egoism - His perfection is magnified by the presence of imperfection. Christianity contends the opposite - that humanitys imperfection reflects the potential for God's perfection. What I'm saying is that God isn't, necessarily, perfect according to human nature. He is perfect according to His own nature. The two have only been united in Christ - where imperfection and perfection complimented and encouraged one another.

So a perfect being killing an imperfect being doesn't jive because perfection is ONLY perfect according to its own nature. Imperfection is ONLY imperfect relative to the nature of perfection. A human being killing another human being at the behest of God isn't an example of perfection intervening but, rather, an example of the imperfect attempting to claim absolution by appealing to perfection. It's simple nonsense.

Does that make sense?

[Zottistan]

But if you were omnipotent, you'd find a way to relieve him of his sexual urges without neutering him?

Yes but then I'm also not all knowing perhaps the suffering of neutering benefits the dog in someway? I will now give up arguing this point, because its pretty hard.

All im saying is that if you believe God exists then you can't have them restricted by human understanding, morality, or logic. If your restricting them through those things then your clearly not a believer.

Human understanding and morality, fair enough.

Logic restricts all things.

[Greater-London]

A test of faith by taking a human life, really?

Also, quite nice contradiction to your first statements that "God is all loving"... right.

I don't know my entire augment has been you can't rationalize the actions of a being you don't understand just you could trust them if you were assured they were always doing Good.

It also needn't be a contradiction. You can still love someone but not solve all of their problems.

[The Alma Mater]

He told Abraham to kill his son, I mean I know he stopped last second but he still ordered it.

If you read between the lines then you would see that that was a test of Abraham's faith.

God also explicitly orders stonings for a wide variety of sins. God has no problem with humans killing other humans - as long as he is the one ordering it.

[Mnar Secundus]

God wouldn't tell me to kill anybody. God loves everybody, he'd never want to see somebody be murdered.

OP, I don't think you know how hypothetical questions work. They have to be at least remotely possible. God telling anybody to kill somebody is not remotely possible.

I don't think you're really up to date on God. Maybe you should read the Bible. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). He also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there, demanding the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married - God enforcing rape and sexual slavery is a leitmotiv of the Old Testament. In 2 Kings 10:18-27, He orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their own church. In total, God directly kills 371,186 people and, more to the point at hand, orders another 1,862,265 people murdered. And that's without accounting for the victims of the Flood and other vague devastations of which the victims cannot be counted.

[Distruzio]

If you read between the lines then you would see that that was a test of Abraham's faith.

God also explicitly orders stonings for a wide variety of sins. God has no problem with humans killing other humans - as long as he is the one ordering it.

Did God order that or did the Jewish proto-state order that?

[Sun Wukong]

God also explicitly orders stonings for a wide variety of sins. God has no problem with humans killing other humans - as long as he is the one ordering it.

Did God order that or did the Jewish proto-state order that?

Abraham?

[The Alma Mater]

A test of faith by taking a human life, really?

Also, quite nice contradiction to your first statements that "God is all loving"... right.

I don't know my entire augment has been you can't rationalize the actions of a being you don't understand just you could trust them if you were assured they were always doing Good.

Which is a valid point.
The thing is - we do not know if they are always doing Good. You merely assume that God is both noble and always knows better.

To return to the dog (sorry) - imagine that every day you grabbed a stick and beat him "for his own good".
Perhaps you genuinely believe that to be true. Perhaps you are just a sick person who gets off on beating dogs.
Would the dog have anyway of knowing ? Is it wrong of the dog if at some point he stops loving and trusting you and bites you ?

Obviously, it is bad for the dogs lifespan - since you would have him euthanised then (or would kill him with your stick yourself). But would it truly have been a bad dog ?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A test of faith by taking a human life, really?

Also, quite nice contradiction to your first statements that "God is all loving"... right.

I don't know my entire augment has been you can't rationalize the actions of a being you don't understand just you could trust them if you were assured they were always doing Good.

It also needn't be a contradiction. You can still love someone but not solve all of their problems.

But we're not talking about humanity, we're talking about this concept of God you like to attribute that he is all powerful.

See, you're asking us not to rely on reason and logic to defy God but when it comes to you actually being consistent with his supposed "perfect attributes" you can't.

[The Alma Mater]

God also explicitly orders stonings for a wide variety of sins. God has no problem with humans killing other humans - as long as he is the one ordering it.

Did God order that or did the Jewish proto-state order that?

An intruiging question. Several of the orders were given directly to Moses - if one believes the Bible.
But of course, that could all be made up by the Jewish proto-politicians.

[Distruzio]

Did God order that or did the Jewish proto-state order that?

An intruiging question. Several of the orders were given directly to Moses - if one believes the Bible.
But of course, that could all be made up by the Jewish proto-politicians.

Indeed. The orthodox (little 'o') Christian position is that literal interpretation of the Bible isn't necessary for a Christian existence. So those individuals who do interpret the Bible literally kinda make things difficult for themselves - they're trying to justify their own nonsense by claiming "God told me to do it!" I rather agree with the anti-scriptural atheists who argue that the God of the OT must have been one hell of an asshole because I don't see God of the OT ordering those things directly. I see a proto-state, a people, a nation and culture striving to compete with other proto-states, peoples, nations and cultures by appealing to God and attributing/defending their actions thus.

It's the same thing as Adam defending himself to God in Eden by saying, "she gave the fruit to me!" He might as well have been pleading that he wasn't at fault. That's a dick move as far as I'm concerned - it's to be expected but still a dick move. And what does the Bible say happened to Adam following his dickery? It says he lost his place in Eden. What does the Bible repeatedly show happening to the people of Israel before and after their appeals to God? They are continually "punished for wickedness".

Just what wickedness are we to interpret from this?

The OT wasn't written by a single guy so we can easily extrapolate multiple personal perspectives on the nature of the Israeli people simply by reading the text. I rather doubt the several authors held the same view. Some show obvious lament about the actions of their people. Others seem to relish it. The common theme, however, is that the jewish people struggled to survive a harsh landscape and shit got real. That doesn't mean that God Himself ordered dickery. It just means that dickery happened and God was blamed.

In fact, the few times God does "literally" (according to standards expressed in the Bible) intervene... He kinda says the precise opposite of "kill that douschebro for me, yeah?" The 10 commandments and Jesus spring to mind. Other times, it's just guys (and gals) saying, "I heard the voice of God tell me...". Fishy fishy, neh?

Maybe God isn't the dick we want Him to be to justify our own villainy. Maybe dude is kinda like, "wanna get on my good side? Don't be a dick, okay?" and our follow up is, "but them folks over there are dicks! So... if we eliminate them then we don't have to worry about dickery because your suggestion becomes real, right?"

[Ereria]

If god wants me to murder he isnt worthy of my faith

[Sun Wukong]

If god wants me to murder he isnt worthy of my faith

What if it's with those cool faceless assassin guys?

[Kvatchdom]

If god wants me to murder he isnt worthy of my faith

That sounds fucking badass.

[Ifreann]

If god wants me to murder he isnt worthy of my faith

What if it's with those cool faceless assassin guys?

Well you've gotta kill someone if they tell you to. Valar dohaeris.

[The rhomaio]

Maybe a better question is when is the last time he's asked someone to kill for him.

[Ethel mermania]

If you read between the lines then you would see that that was a test of Abraham's faith.

That was quite a shit test, IMO.

agreed, abraham played god.

[Page]

Maybe a better question is when is the last time he's asked someone to kill for him.

Well never since there is no god but that is the wonder of hypotheticals like this.