Would You Kill God?

[New confederate ramenia]

1. This is a hypothetical situation where he exists
2. His book of propaganda is true in this hypothetical situation

1. And where we can kill him, which every Christian has fervently denied is possible, even in hypothetical situations.
2. It isn't if you "kill" him.

1. I'm a Christian and I made this hypothetical situation. God is, according to most schools of Christianity, omnipotent, meaning he can give someone a magic "Kill God" button.
2. What part of the Bible makes this situation impossible?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

1. And where we can kill him, which every Christian has fervently denied is possible, even in hypothetical situations.
2. It isn't if you "kill" him.

1. I'm a Christian and I made this hypothetical situation. God is, according to most schools of Christianity, omnipotent, meaning he can give someone a magic "Kill God" button.
2. What part of the Bible makes this situation impossible?

1. Almost every other Christian in this thread disagrees with you.
2. The whole part where, you know... Jesus returns... that whole "Revelation" thing John wrote...

[North Arkana]

If God can make and do anything can he make something he can't destroy?
This question has been breaking religious logic for LORD knows how long.

[New confederate ramenia]

If God can make and do anything can he make something he can't destroy?
This question has been breaking religious logic for LORD knows how long.

Yes, and he can also destroy it.

1. I'm a Christian and I made this hypothetical situation. God is, according to most schools of Christianity, omnipotent, meaning he can give someone a magic "Kill God" button.
2. What part of the Bible makes this situation impossible?

1. Almost every other Christian in this thread disagrees with you.
2. The whole part where, you know... Jesus returns... that whole "Revelation" thing John wrote...

1. Almost every other Christian in this thread would choose not to kill God in this situation. I would choose not to kill God as well. But most Christians are aware that the choice would exist.
2. That was a death, but not a permanent death. This situation has permanent death.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

1. Almost every other Christian in this thread would choose not to kill God in this situation. I would choose not to kill God as well. But most Christians are aware that the choice would exist.
2. That was a death, but not a permanent death. This situation has permanent death.

1. False. Most have said you could not kill God or he wasn't God in the first place.
2. ...what? No? Christ could not return and Revelation could not be fulfilled if God no longer existed.

[Valystria]

It's fine, right... depends on what state you live in.

Its even scarier having the state as an all powerful deity than a vague God in my opinion.

Not all of us need a master to serve and obey.

But many of us should have a master that can guide us in the proper direction.

Its been done, with less serious results that this one has inspired.
Meanwhile your progessively fundamentalist state is an oxymoron that in its overreach for idyllic
society will eventually achieve a stasis that might serve its purpose, but not humanity's. There will never be an absolute unitarian ideology, because no human contrivance can escape the vagaries of our own dual nature. That which is used for + can and will be used for -, and the opinion on what those are will never be universal either, thankfully.

which is why sometimes the correct outcome must be enforced from the top down; sometimes we can't afford to be held back by humanity's inability to agree on the most important social and economic issues of the day

It's fair to view it as our ethical obligation to enforce meaningful reform from the top down when it is necessary to do so.

Not all extremes are bad. A fundamentally progressivist state would be structurally inclined to forever improve the human condition. Such a state would the most real deity that ever existed.

Perhaps the OP should not have asked would you kill god, but instead would you become god or create a god.

Its been done, with less serious results that this one has inspired.
Meanwhile your progessively fundamentalist state is an oxymoron that in its overreach for idyllic
society will eventually achieve a stasis that might serve its purpose, but not humanity's. There will never be an absolute unitarian ideology, because no human contrivance can escape the vagaries of our own dual nature. That which is used for + can and will be used for -, and the opinion on what those are will never be universal either, thankfully.

If a fundamentally progressivist state is not sufficient for you, perhaps continuously improving the human condition isn't your priority. Progressivism inherently serves humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

A state structurally bound to those core principles is incapable of stasis. It only ever continue innovating. That is the sort of god that should exist.

[North Arkana]

If God can make and do anything can he make something he can't destroy?
This question has been breaking religious logic for LORD knows how long.

Yes, and he can also destroy it.

Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself. Don't worry, it happens from time to time for religious types.

[Ostroeuropa]

But many of us should have a master that can guide us in the proper direction.

Or a mistress.
...

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not all of us need a master to serve and obey.

But many of us should have a master that can guide us in the proper direction.

If you're a child or mentally disabled, perhaps.

If not, that only demonstrates a lack of character - if speaking for others, an undeserved sense of self-righteousness.

[New confederate ramenia]

If a fundamentally progressivist state is not sufficient for you, perhaps continuously improving the human condition isn't your priority. Progressivism inherently serves humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

A state structurally bound to those core principles is incapable of stasis. It only ever continue innovating. That is the sort of god that should exist.

Progressivism doesn't inherently serve humanity. "Progress", which isn't even defined, hasn't been proven to be inherently good for humanity. You said you believe in the Idea of Progress, but nobody else will if you don't explain why it is true.

Even if progress is a real and good thing, that doesn't mean progressivism serves progress in practice. It doesn't mean a utopian state like you described is even possible.

Actual evidence would rule out a progressive state. In general, states tend toward stasis and decline. This happened to every single state which doesn't currently exist. Your progressive state is a fantasy, a god that doesn't exist.

[Alvecia]

Yes, and he can also destroy it.

Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself. Don't worry, it happens from time to time for religious types.

Playing devil's advocate, if God is all powerful, then he has the power to create something he cannot destroy, he can also destroy said object unbreakable object.
This is contradictory? So. God is all powerful. He has the power to be contradictory

But many of us should have a master that can guide us in the proper direction.

Or a mistress.
...

[Big Jim P]

I have already enslaved any god you might care to mention, Why kill livestock?

[Imperium Invictum]

One does not simply kill God.

[The Tungsten Horde (Ancient)]

I have already enslaved any god you might care to mention, Why kill livestock?

I'd say to eat it, but I'm led to believe Gods taste like dry wafers.

[Big Jim P]

I have already enslaved any god you might care to mention, Why kill livestock?

I'd say to eat it, but I'm led to believe Gods taste like dry wafers.

Most taste like dry paper, and dead minds.

[Immoren]

One does not simply kill God.

You need sunder, keening and wraithguard for that,

[Alvecia]

One does not simply kill God.

If God is all powerful then he has the power to die.

[Korhal IVV]

One does not simply kill God.

If God is all powerful then he has the power to die.

The only thing God can't do is to fail.

[Alvecia]

If God is all powerful then he has the power to die.

The only thing God can't do is to fail.

Then he is not all powerful...

[Korhal IVV]

The only thing God can't do is to fail.

Then he is not all powerful...

He cannot fail

[Alvecia]

Then he is not all powerful...

He cannot fail

Then he is not all powerful...

[Valystria]

But many of us should have a master that can guide us in the proper direction.

If you're a child or mentally disabled, perhaps.

If not, that only demonstrates a lack of character - if speaking for others, an undeserved sense of self-righteousness.

My sense of self-righteousness is deserved.

But many of us should have a master that can guide us in the proper direction.

Or a mistress.
...

That would be equally sufficient.

If a fundamentally progressivist state is not sufficient for you, perhaps continuously improving the human condition isn't your priority. Progressivism inherently serves humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism


A state structurally bound to those core principles is incapable of stasis. It only ever continue innovating. That is the sort of god that should exist.

Progressivism doesn't inherently serve humanity. "Progress", which isn't even defined, hasn't been proven to be inherently good for humanity. You said you believe in the Idea of Progress, but nobody else will if you don't explain why it is true.

Even if progress is a real and good thing, that doesn't mean progressivism serves progress in practice. It doesn't mean a utopian state like you described is even possible.

Actual evidence would rule out a progressive state. In general, states tend toward stasis and decline. This happened to every single state which doesn't currently exist. Your progressive state is a fantasy, a god that doesn't exist.

Yes it does inherently serve humanity...
Improving the human condition inherently serves humanity by definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

Progress is defined.

Development towards an improved or more advanced condition:
we are making progress towards equal rights

You're taking a solipsist approach by doubting the existence of progress. You belief about states in general tending towards stasis and decline doesn't apply to a state structurally inclined to innovate and ever improve itself.

You do not have the actual evidence you are alluding to in your response. You are mistaking your beliefs and personal conjectures to be actual evidence.

[Ostroeuropa]

My sense of self-righteousness is deserved.

Eyup.

That would be equally sufficient.

Some might say personally preferable even.




Why kill a god when you can make one and such.

[Imperium Invictum]

He can fail if he wants to, but its not in his nature to fail. You see, God has no real free will. I mean, he has it theoretically, but according to the whole concept of God being omnipotent and inerrable- he just like never exploits his right to do something that is not right or sound. So God is, essentially, infallible- he does not fail. That of course does not mean he could not fail if he saw it fit. One could even argue that him making evil possible as a directive of choice is, indeed, him failing deliberately to make a perfect system. Because perfect systems make no point. Who is brave when no one is afraid? That of course is a very strained hypothesis I will not care to argue right now.
P.S. All this is only valid if you believe God is real.

[North Arkana]

He can fail if he wants to, but its not in his nature to fail. You see, God has no real free will. I mean, he has it theoretically, but according to the whole concept of God being omnipotent and inerrable- he just like never exploits his right to do something that is not right or sound. So God is, essentially, infallible- he does not fail. That of course does not mean he could not fail if he saw it fit. One could even argue that him making evil possible as a directive of choice is, indeed, him failing deliberately to make a perfect system. Because perfect systems make no point. Who is brave when no one is afraid? That of course is a very strained hypothesis I will not care to argue right now.
P.S. All this is only valid if you believe God is real.

So... tl;Dr he's a terrible bastard who purposely F***s with us so we live in fear and end crawling to him on our hands and knees for his mercy?

Wow. Yeah, let's kill 'im.