|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
God has ordered you to kill
God has ordered you to kill
I have asked this question to dozens and dozens of people, across continents and across religions. I thought it might be interesting to ask it here, too. A couple of threads have skirted around the question, but none yet have come right out and asked it that I have seen.
The hypothetical situation
The hypothetical situation that this question is based on works is simple. Somehow your god has conveyed to you a message that you must kill a person. However this was done, you have no doubt in your mind that the message really is from your god. There is no deception or trickery, and you have been convinced of this somehow.
The person you have been ordered to kill is not an obviously dangerous person. For example, your god has not ordered you to kill Osama ibn Laden or Pat Robertson, but an average person who, by any reasonable estimation, is harmless. There is no reason to suspect that this person is in anyway a threat to anyone or anything. They are an ordinary, average person with an ordinary, average job and family.
So, to summarize, you have been given an order that you are sure is from your god to kill a person that you cannot see a secular reason to kill. What do you do?
Before you answer
Before you answer, here are some qualifying points:
First, you can't simply say that your god would never ask you to do such a thing, unless you can prove that not only have they never done it, but they definitely never would. For most religions, if not all, that is not possible.
Second, you can't simply say that you don't have enough evidence that it really is the will of your god. The assumption of the question is that you have had it proven to you in some way or another that this really is a request from your god.
If you do either of these things, you are avoiding the question. The question assumes that your god has asked you kill someone, and you have proof that the request actually came from your god.
(However, if you can actually prove that your god would never ask someone to kill, feel free to present it. Clearly that is not the case for any of the Judaistic religions: Abraham was ordered to kill his son. Sure, God ordered him to stop at the last minute, but the point of the affair was that God ordered it and Abraham was prepared to do it. And of course, there are plenty of other cases of God ordering killing, often of innocents, such as in Exodus 32, Deuteronomy 7, Joshua 8-11, Judges 20, 2 Chronicles 22, Ezekiel 9... need i go on?)
Summary
So in summary, the question at hand is:
Once you have answered that, you can answer the followup question: What would it take to convince you that an order to kill someone actually came from your god?
I have asked this question to dozens and dozens of people, across continents and across religions. I thought it might be interesting to ask it here, too. A couple of threads have skirted around the question, but none yet have come right out and asked it that I have seen.
- What if your god told you to kill someone? What would you do? Would you attempt to argue? Would you simply refuse? Or would you actually go ahead and do it?
The hypothetical situation
The hypothetical situation that this question is based on works is simple. Somehow your god has conveyed to you a message that you must kill a person. However this was done, you have no doubt in your mind that the message really is from your god. There is no deception or trickery, and you have been convinced of this somehow.
The person you have been ordered to kill is not an obviously dangerous person. For example, your god has not ordered you to kill Osama ibn Laden or Pat Robertson, but an average person who, by any reasonable estimation, is harmless. There is no reason to suspect that this person is in anyway a threat to anyone or anything. They are an ordinary, average person with an ordinary, average job and family.
So, to summarize, you have been given an order that you are sure is from your god to kill a person that you cannot see a secular reason to kill. What do you do?
Before you answer
Before you answer, here are some qualifying points:
First, you can't simply say that your god would never ask you to do such a thing, unless you can prove that not only have they never done it, but they definitely never would. For most religions, if not all, that is not possible.
Second, you can't simply say that you don't have enough evidence that it really is the will of your god. The assumption of the question is that you have had it proven to you in some way or another that this really is a request from your god.
If you do either of these things, you are avoiding the question. The question assumes that your god has asked you kill someone, and you have proof that the request actually came from your god.
(However, if you can actually prove that your god would never ask someone to kill, feel free to present it. Clearly that is not the case for any of the Judaistic religions: Abraham was ordered to kill his son. Sure, God ordered him to stop at the last minute, but the point of the affair was that God ordered it and Abraham was prepared to do it. And of course, there are plenty of other cases of God ordering killing, often of innocents, such as in Exodus 32, Deuteronomy 7, Joshua 8-11, Judges 20, 2 Chronicles 22, Ezekiel 9... need i go on?)
Summary
So in summary, the question at hand is:
- Your god has ordered you to kill. You have no doubt that this order is from your god. You cannot see a reason to kill the intended victim other than that it has been commanded by your god. What do you do?
Once you have answered that, you can answer the followup question: What would it take to convince you that an order to kill someone actually came from your god?
to kill
If I had a god like this, i rather believe in no god
| Quote: |
| but an average person who, by any reasonable estimation, is harmless |
If I had a god like this, i rather believe in no god
| yy1124 wrote: | ||
to kill
If I had a god like this, i rather believe in no god |
If you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim, you do have a god like that. Basically what i've done is put you in Abraham's shoes (sandals, whatever). God ordered him to kill his son, for no apparent reason. Abraham chose to comply with God's command. Would you?
Indi, you so kindly left out the rest of the story. God ordered Abraham to kill his son, but then stopped him in the process. God was testing Abraham's faith and obedience. Abraham didn't actually kill his son.
Please don't leave things like that out - your statement completely changed the meaning of the story.
Please don't leave things like that out - your statement completely changed the meaning of the story.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Indi, you so kindly left out the rest of the story. God ordered Abraham to kill his son, but then stopped him in the process. God was testing Abraham's faith and obedience. Abraham didn't actually kill his son.
Please don't leave things like that out - your statement completely changed the meaning of the story. |
| Indi wrote: |
| Abraham was ordered to kill his son. Sure, God ordered him to stop at the last minute, but the point of the affair was that God ordered it and Abraham was prepared to do it. |
Emphasis mine.
Nothing left out. Stop feeling attacked, and consider answering the question.
As I read it, the question is about the believer, not about God.| Soulfire wrote: |
| Indi, you so kindly left out the rest of the story. God ordered Abraham to kill his son, but then stopped him in the process. God was testing Abraham's faith and obedience. Abraham didn't actually kill his son.
Please don't leave things like that out - your statement completely changed the meaning of the story. |
Ok, so God stopped him, what about the genocides that God commanded the Israelites to do?
Read the bible, there are many more examples of God telling people to kill or more accurately, people who clam to hear Gods voice.
I would kill anyone if God (not just mine, but 'ours') told me to. But if he gave me choice, I wouldnt do it. But if He says its something only I can do, I would do it. Its detestable to me, and I dont believe I will ever do anything like that, but if God told me to do it, i would, but one or both of the following conditions should exist:
1) Reasonable proof that he is the TRUE god, the creator, top boss. He can like bend space/time on a whim, raise the dead, let me talk to my dead relatives and know everything there is to know (or at least know everything I want to know) He will have answers to any question I ask. He will not just tell me the answers, he will show them to me.
2) Reasonable explanation why the person should be killed. could be a deadly virus in his blood, he needs to be killed before it becomes contagious, or else an entire city will die.
If a voice in my head tells me to do something unreasonable, then it could not possibly be God, and I would not do it. Id sooner put the gun to my head than kill anyone else. I am catholic but I dont take the things written in the bible as facts. There are a lot of good things written in it and a lot of truths, but it is very difficult to weed out fact from 'artistic expression' (surely the early writers were also thinking of their market/readers) for example Abraham's story of killing his son could just be a story about faith and love for your God or your beliefs. It is a story that wants to tell us how exceptional this man was. how exceptional his relationship with God was. Its just a story, we dont know if it was real. If it was real, we dont know the exact circumstances that were present during that time. I know, there are a lot of instances in the bible that tells of blind faith, but to obey without thinking is not right. To obey without thinking is to act without using all the faculties given to us to make the correct decisions.
1) Reasonable proof that he is the TRUE god, the creator, top boss. He can like bend space/time on a whim, raise the dead, let me talk to my dead relatives and know everything there is to know (or at least know everything I want to know) He will have answers to any question I ask. He will not just tell me the answers, he will show them to me.
2) Reasonable explanation why the person should be killed. could be a deadly virus in his blood, he needs to be killed before it becomes contagious, or else an entire city will die.
If a voice in my head tells me to do something unreasonable, then it could not possibly be God, and I would not do it. Id sooner put the gun to my head than kill anyone else. I am catholic but I dont take the things written in the bible as facts. There are a lot of good things written in it and a lot of truths, but it is very difficult to weed out fact from 'artistic expression' (surely the early writers were also thinking of their market/readers) for example Abraham's story of killing his son could just be a story about faith and love for your God or your beliefs. It is a story that wants to tell us how exceptional this man was. how exceptional his relationship with God was. Its just a story, we dont know if it was real. If it was real, we dont know the exact circumstances that were present during that time. I know, there are a lot of instances in the bible that tells of blind faith, but to obey without thinking is not right. To obey without thinking is to act without using all the faculties given to us to make the correct decisions.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
If you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim, you do have a god like that. Basically what i've done is put you in Abraham's shoes (sandals, whatever). God ordered him to kill his son, for no apparent reason. Abraham chose to comply with God's command. Would you? |
I won't be sure if I am raise as a muslim, christian or jew, but for what I am now, I won't. I mean, if I for some reason converted to either one of these three religion now, and god put me in Abraham's shoe, i think I will lose my faith right away...
My Goddess would not ask me to kill. Why should she bother, if she really wanted someone dead, she could do it herself. She would know that I would not intentionally kill someone, so wouldn't ask me. Most importantly, in my religion, life is sacred, so for me to kill someone would mean going against my religion.
| Kaneda wrote: | ||||
Emphasis mine. Nothing left out. Stop feeling attacked, and consider answering the question. As I read it, the question is about the believer, not about God. |
Absolutely correct. i don't care about God's behaviour in the matter. i'm concerned about Abraham, and by extension, all followers of all gods.
Abraham was ordered to kill, and set about to do it. That God stopped him is a non-issue. Abraham was going to kill.
The question is if you were asked to kill, would you? The question is not would God ask you to kill, or would he allow you to follow through on it. Those are issues for another thread. There is only one issue here. God has ordered you to kill. What do you do?
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| My Goddess would not ask me to kill. Why should she bother, if she really wanted someone dead, she could do it herself. She would know that I would not intentionally kill someone, so wouldn't ask me. Most importantly, in my religion, life is sacred, so for me to kill someone would mean going against my religion. |
i don't care. The question was not would your god(dess) ask you to kill. It was if he(she/it) did order you to kill, would you do it?
Telling me what your particular god would or wouldn't do is of absolutely no interest to me. i don't believe they exist, remember. Discussing the characteristics of a figment of your imagination is just wasting my time.
You exist. And it is you that i am concerned with. i don't want to hear about how awesome your god is, or now compassionate your religion is. i want to hear what you would do if your god demanded that of you. Would you obey? Would you turn your back on your god and refuse?
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| I would kill anyone if God (not just mine, but 'ours') told me to. But if he gave me choice, I wouldnt do it. But if He says its something only I can do, I would do it. Its detestable to me, and I dont believe I will ever do anything like that, but if God told me to do it, i would, but one or both of the following conditions should exist:
1) Reasonable proof that he is the TRUE god, the creator, top boss. He can like bend space/time on a whim, raise the dead, let me talk to my dead relatives and know everything there is to know (or at least know everything I want to know) He will have answers to any question I ask. He will not just tell me the answers, he will show them to me. |
Yes, that is a provision of the hypothetical situation. In the hypothetical situation, you have no doubt that the order is really coming from your god. It has been proven to you somehow, by whatever standards of proof you require.
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| 2) Reasonable explanation why the person should be killed. could be a deadly virus in his blood, he needs to be killed before it becomes contagious, or else an entire city will die. |
Is it appropriate to demand explanations from a deity? What if your god tells you, "It is not your place to know these things."? (And remember, it has already been proven to you that the order is coming from your god.) If your god chooses not to explain to you why you must follow the command you've been given, will you defy?
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| There are a lot of good things written in it and a lot of truths, but it is very difficult to weed out fact from 'artistic expression' (surely the early writers were also thinking of their market/readers) for example Abraham's story of killing his son could just be a story about faith and love for your God or your beliefs. It is a story that wants to tell us how exceptional this man was. how exceptional his relationship with God was. Its just a story, we dont know if it was real. If it was real, we dont know the exact circumstances that were present during that time. |
Does it really matter if the situation was literally real? The fact is that the incident with Abraham is held up as an example of how one should interact with God. The first part lesson is that when God commands, no matter how distasteful the command, you obey. End of story. The second part of the lesson is that you can trust God's commands to always have your best interest at heart. To put it altogether, the lesson is "obey God's commands without question; he always looks out for your best interests wherever possible".
That's a fine lesson, but as i said above, i don't care about God's qualities or his motivations. It's a fascinating topic, sure, but not the topic of this thread. i care about people's actions in this kind of scenario - in this particular case, Abraham's (whether those actions were real or simply myth is also unimportant, because they are usually taken as a lesson of how one should respond to a command from God).
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| I know, there are a lot of instances in the bible that tells of blind faith, but to obey without thinking is not right. To obey without thinking is to act without using all the faculties given to us to make the correct decisions. |
Here's the problem though. You know that it is God talking to you - this much has been proven to you (in the hypothetical situation). If you know that God is ordering you to do something - in this case, to kill someone - is it your place to analyze the propriety of that action? What if God simply chooses not to tell you? What if he does tell you the reason, but you disagree - do you trust God anyway, or do you defy him?
| Kaneda wrote: | ||||
Emphasis mine. Nothing left out. Stop feeling attacked, and consider answering the question. As I read it, the question is about the believer, not about God. |
| Indi wrote: |
| If you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim, you do have a god like that. Basically what i've done is put you in Abraham's shoes (sandals, whatever). God ordered him to kill his son, for no apparent reason. Abraham chose to comply with God's command. Would you? |
^^
That's what I was referring to, not the original post.
And if you want to discuss genocide in the Bible, bring up the verses, and we'll talk.
| Soulfire wrote: | ||
^^ That's what I was referring to, not the original post. |
While it is a foreign idea for a lot of people here to actually read the first post in a thread before replying, it shouldn't be necessary to redundantly reiterate what was already said there in every post made after it. That way, discussion gets nowhere.
| Quote: |
| And if you want to discuss genocide in the Bible, bring up the verses, and we'll talk. |
The verses have already been brought up (once again in the first post), but they're not needed. Indi's reply says it all. Leave this on-topic.
I refuse. My belief in God is just that, a belief. And when it came down to doing the deed, I would have to say I have more faith in my own (God given?) sense of right and wrong.
I will add that I think the question sits on an impossible premise. There is no way that the situation could arise that I wouldn't be more likely to believe that I was delusional as opposed to thinking that the all-mighty was revealing himself to me.
But given the premise, I would have to decline to kill.
I will add that I think the question sits on an impossible premise. There is no way that the situation could arise that I wouldn't be more likely to believe that I was delusional as opposed to thinking that the all-mighty was revealing himself to me.
But given the premise, I would have to decline to kill.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Here's the problem though. You know that it is God talking to you - this much has been proven to you (in the hypothetical situation). If you know that God is ordering you to do something - in this case, to kill someone - is it your place to analyze the propriety of that action? What if God simply chooses not to tell you? What if he does tell you the reason, but you disagree - do you trust God anyway, or do you defy him? |
I "know" its God, if it is him then I have nothing to worry about, if he tells me to kill someone its probably for some good reason. But, what if its not Him? he is supposed to be infallible but I am not. What if its some telepathic alien messing with my brain, telling me to collect fetuses...then Im screwed. What if its some weird allergenic reaction to some chemical, making me delusional? I dont think any law would accept 'God told me to do it' as an excuse.
in your hypothetical situation, if it is God, I would do it. If I just know its God, I would still rely on my reasoning, if it goes against reason, I wont do it. If he says something like 'do it to prove your faith..' Id say kiss my a$$... if your really God I dont have to prove anything to you. I know, instances in the Bible show that God did that, he tests men's faith... those are just stories, they could mean anything.
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| ....
in your hypothetical situation, if it is God, I would do it. If I just know its God, I would still rely on my reasoning, ... |
Er, just out of curiousity, how would you know the difference?
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
Er, just out of curiousity, how would you know the difference? |
Good question. I was thinking hypothetically. Practically speaking, I would not do anything that goes against reason. Your question is different from Indi's. Your question is, 'how would you know it really is God when you see Him?'. Indi's hypothetical question assumed that this question has already been answered. I honestly dont know what the answer to that is. I dont know how I would know that a being claiming to be The God is not a fake. I always assumed that I would just know.. but that's plain stupid. I have to think about that...
Not many theists are not going to answer the question, these questions they avoid.
| Soulfire wrote: | ||||||||
^^ That's what I was referring to, not the original post. |
Your objections are irrelevancies. i didn't think i would have to explain this concept step by step, but apparently that seems to be the case.
- Very rough timeline of events
- God orders Abraham to kill his son.
- Abraham prepares to kill his son.
- God orders Abraham not to kill his son and supplies an alternative.
- Abraham obeys.
Is there anything in that timeline that anyone objects to? It's as factual and unbiased an account of what (supposedly) happened as i think possible. You can't get anymore literal and unbiased when describing the gross outline that event. That's it there, the hard facts, in temporal order.
You can't seriously have an objection to that timeline, can you?
Now, given that timeline, the question i have asked in this thread is obviously not relevant to God or God's choices and actions, it's about Abraham and Abrahams choices and actions. Is that clear to you now?
God is not on trial. His religion is not on trial. We're talking about Abraham, and what you would do in Abraham's place. i said as much explicitly in the bit you quoted. Is that also clear to you now?
So given that we're discussing Abraham's actions and choices, and given the implicit assumption that Abraham - unlike God - did not know the future, consider step 2 in the timeline. Let me say this again, Abraham can't see the future, so he is unaware of what is going to happen in steps 3 and 4. Do you get this? Is there any part of that that you have difficulty understanding?
So at step 2, Abraham is only aware of what happened in step 1. Ok?
So all Abraham knows is that God has ordered him to kill his son, for no apparent reason other than that God feels like it. It is this information - and only this information - that Abraham has on hand when he makes the decision he makes in step 2.
Do you understand this? Is there anything in the above that you don't understand or don't agree with?
Now the question of this thread is what decision would you make in Abraham's shoes. Get it? Clear?
Note that the premise and the question do not require me to talk about God's actions after step 2. They're simply not relevant. All that matters is that God ordered Abraham to kill without rational explanation. That is the only information that Abraham had when he made his decision, and it is his decision that we're examining. Do you understand this?
If you managed to get here, then you should realize that your objections so far in this thread have been irrelevant background noise. It doesn't matter what happened after. It doesn't matter what God did or why. All that matters is God ordered someone to kill without giving them a rational reason. That person chose to do it. What God did a couple of hours later, or the next day, or next year - none of that is relevant. What Abraham did the day before, the colour of his outfit, what he had for breakfast the next day - none of that is relevant.
All that matters is God ordered someone to kill without giving them a rational reason. That person chose to do it. Would you?
That's the question of this thread. Simple.
If you had a valid argument for why God would never ask such a thing, you'd be welcome to present it. But you don't. You can't. It's absurd to even claim you do, because, clearly, God did make that request. It doesn't matter what happened next or whether or not God recanted. God made that request of Abraham, and Abraham was forced to make the choice i am asking you to make.
Please stop posting irrelevancies.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| And if you want to discuss genocide in the Bible, bring up the verses, and we'll talk. |
Sure. But not here.
The quantity and nature of the genocides in the bible - if there are any - is not really relevant. God can and did order someone to kill without offering a rational explanation. The person had to make a decision. End of story.
What happened the next day is not relevant. Whether or not the massacre of the other millions in the bible was justified or not is also not relevant.
You have the question. You have the justification for the question. Answer it - or at the very least discuss it - or find another thread.
| NemoySpruce wrote: | ||||
I "know" its God, if it is him then I have nothing to worry about, if he tells me to kill someone its probably for some good reason. But, what if its not Him? he is supposed to be infallible but I am not. What if its some telepathic alien messing with my brain, telling me to collect fetuses...then Im screwed. What if its some weird allergenic reaction to some chemical, making me delusional? I dont think any law would accept 'God told me to do it' as an excuse. in your hypothetical situation, if it is God, I would do it. If I just know its God, I would still rely on my reasoning, if it goes against reason, I wont do it. If he says something like 'do it to prove your faith..' Id say kiss my a$$... if your really God I dont have to prove anything to you. I know, instances in the Bible show that God did that, he tests men's faith... those are just stories, they could mean anything. |
Yes, the question you guys are considering adds a whole new dimension of complexity to the problem. It's a valid question too, that does complicate the issue for people that are trying to answer the original question.
Most people have chosen to worship the god(s) they worship because they believe that that god is not batshit crazy. Therefore, the issue of what they would do in such a situation strikes them as almost paradoxical - non-sensical, like asking "what would you do if you got your tongue caught in a jet engine?". First one wonders how such a thing could ever happen (what would i be doing licking a jet engine, let alone one in operation), then one can't really offer a logical answer because the question is functionally meaningless (if your tongue is caught in the intake of a jet engine, there's not really much you can do anyway - you probably won't even have time to process what has happened before you're a fine red mist).
The thing is, in virtually every conception of a god, that god is conscious, intelligent and has the ability to do just about anything it pleases (omnipotent, or close enough to). It's also generally aware of many things that we're not. It usually also demands obedience, more often than not unquestioning obedience.
For example, take the objection above by woundedhealer:
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| My Goddess would not ask me to kill. Why should she bother, if she really wanted someone dead, she could do it herself. She would know that I would not intentionally kill someone, so wouldn't ask me. |
This objection is not valid. First, take the statement: "My Goddess would not ask me to kill." Assuming his goddess could ask him to kill (that is, that his goddess is capable of making such a request - and if it was not even capable of making that request, it is a severely limited entity), then there is no functional way that he can assert it never would. We can't even assert that animals, let alone humans, will never do something that they are capable of. It is completely illogical to make that statement about a higher being.
The second part of the objection is also not valid: "if she really wanted someone dead, she could do it herself." The point of the exercise is not that the goddess wants someone dead, it's that the goddess wants you to kill them. If you want to believe there's a hidden reason for them wanting you to do the deed, go ahead. The issue is that the goddess can make such a request, and in the hypothetical scenario, has.
And given that hypothetical, the last bit of the objection becomes meaningless. It was asked (in the hypothetical situation). If you simply won't do it, then your answer is to refuse the deity.
You see, NemoySpruce, the question you now find yourself hung up on is based on the assumption that your god would never make such a request of you. That's the same assumption woundedhealer made and can't get past.
I designed the hypothetical situation to make that issue irrelevant by bypassing the conundrum with the assertion that you know that your god is making the request. Now the assumption that your god would never ask that of you has become academic, because you have been asked, and you know the command is legit.
But of course, in practice, you don't have that kind of absolute certainty. Thus the assumption has great relevance.
That's why i asked the question in two parts. The first part is where you assume you've been asked, and you know the request is legit. In this part, you have to consider how much you trust your god. The second part is where you ask what you'd need in order to know the request is legit. In this part, you have to consider how much you trust your faith.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Not many theists are not going to answer the question, these questions they avoid. |
This question is not only relevant to theists. They're just unique in that their belief system has such clear-cut absolutes.
Replace "your god" with "your commanding officer" for soldiers, or "your president" or whoever you trust completely. It's not as difficult an issue because it's easy to sidestep the issue by pointing out that people are fallible (where gods are not), but it's the same question, really.
| Indi wrote: |
|
So in summary, the question at hand is:
Once you have answered that, you can answer the followup question: What would it take to convince you that an order to kill someone actually came from your god? |
1) I would kill.
2) What would it take to convince you that an order to kill someone actually came from your god? mebe something like this....
I find a box and open it. In it are 15 fortune cookies, a note and a gun. The note says:
Dear NemoySpruce,
I know this is the first time I have talked to you but I just need a favor. Would you mind killing that guy next to you, I'd do it myself but It would really be entertaining to see you do it. It gets boring up here sometimes. Yes I have read your posts on Frihost so I know I have to prove myself to you before you do it. Thats what the fortune cookies are for. Ask all your questions, not outloud, just think about them, then pick a cookie smash it and read whats inside, after the 15th question you will be convinced its really me.
Lots of luck and see you soon. They are gonna give you the chair.
God
PS, dont forget to remove the safety before you shoot.
Some people deserve death. Death of innocent people is a crime. Don't we habve wars, accident(by faulty drivings). "Should death only be natural or can be brought by others?" If it's okay when a judge orders to kill. God can be this judge.
This is a very controversial question indeed and I pesonally have mixed thoughts about this matter. If I were to kill someone innocent for religious reasons, I would refuse. The God as I see Him is Love, so I find it absurd that He would ever want me to kill. Anyone, for any reason.
And about Abraham... I'm not a biblist, so I don't know if my views on that matter are accurate, but I would not take this story literally. The biblists claim that Abraham was the first historical character in the Bible, however, in my opinion, this story is still some kind of parable. The true message of it is not that God wants us to kill, it is that God wants us to sacrifice what we love the most. Abraham was so crazy about Isaak, that he became more important to him than God, that's why God wanted to check if he is able to fully dedicate his everything to Him. But it's unbelievable for me that this sacrifice should go that far, I guess this should be some kind of metaphore...
And about Abraham... I'm not a biblist, so I don't know if my views on that matter are accurate, but I would not take this story literally. The biblists claim that Abraham was the first historical character in the Bible, however, in my opinion, this story is still some kind of parable. The true message of it is not that God wants us to kill, it is that God wants us to sacrifice what we love the most. Abraham was so crazy about Isaak, that he became more important to him than God, that's why God wanted to check if he is able to fully dedicate his everything to Him. But it's unbelievable for me that this sacrifice should go that far, I guess this should be some kind of metaphore...
| Quote: |
| woundedhealer wrote:
My Goddess would not ask me to kill. Why should she bother, if she really wanted someone dead, she could do it herself. She would know that I would not intentionally kill someone, so wouldn't ask me. Most importantly, in my religion, life is sacred, so for me to kill someone would mean going against my religion. i don't care. The question was not would your god(dess) ask you to kill. It was if he(she/it) did order you to kill, would you do it? Telling me what your particular god would or wouldn't do is of absolutely no interest to me. i don't believe they exist, remember. Discussing the characteristics of a figment of your imagination is just wasting my time. |
The figment of my imagination would be the Goddess telling me to kill somebody. There are many people in secure institutions who firmly believe their god told them to kill. They are deluded.
If I believed the Goddess told me to kill, I would be mentally ill, so I can't tell you what I would do under those circumstances.
As you do not believe in any God/dess your question seems like a resonable one to you. To those of us who do believe in one, your question is meaningless.
Why do you not have any interest in what I have to say? How am I wasting your time? You ask about something, which to me is imposible, and then don't wish to hear why it is imposible. Surely a negative reply needs qualifing.
| Indi wrote: |
| Replace "your god" with "your commanding officer" for soldiers, or "your president" or whoever you trust completely. It's not as difficult an issue because it's easy to sidestep the issue by pointing out that people are fallible (where gods are not), |
No matter who the person is, I would not kill someone without a rational reason why, be the "commanding officer" my president, my dad or my soulmate.
But I've been hesitant to answer your question regarding God because I'm not very religious, so my idea of God is not completely as defined by my religion. I've always thought of God as more or less spectatorial judge. He cannot really completely control my destiny. Possibly, He has some control over the world he created, but once he gave it a life of its own and free will, he cannot have absolute control over it. What is He the judge of? I'm not completely sure... perhaps the judge of our actions here on Earth (I believe in the afterlife). But I don't yet have enough faith in this theory (I need to perfect it some more before I'm satisfied) to kill someone if God comes down and says "Kill this chap, and I promise you Heaven"
| the_mariska wrote: |
| This is a very controversial question indeed and I pesonally have mixed thoughts about this matter. If I were to kill someone innocent for religious reasons, I would refuse. The God as I see Him is Love, so I find it absurd that He would ever want me to kill. Anyone, for any reason.
And about Abraham... I'm not a biblist, so I don't know if my views on that matter are accurate, but I would not take this story literally. The biblists claim that Abraham was the first historical character in the Bible, however, in my opinion, this story is still some kind of parable. The true message of it is not that God wants us to kill, it is that God wants us to sacrifice what we love the most. Abraham was so crazy about Isaak, that he became more important to him than God, that's why God wanted to check if he is able to fully dedicate his everything to Him. But it's unbelievable for me that this sacrifice should go that far, I guess this should be some kind of metaphore... |
You're missing the point of the question. It doesn't matter whether the incident with Abraham was literal or metaphorical. As you said it above, the story can be considered to be a parable demonstrating that God wants you to be ready to put everything you value aside - sacrifice it even - for God if called upon. For Abraham, that was his son. For you, it might be your desire for non-violence. Abraham didn't want to kill his son, you don't want to kill anyone. Abraham was expected to put his own desires aside when God commanded it, and, ostensibly, so are you.
If you were asked by God to kill someone, and you refused, do you understand the consequences of that refusal? Do you understand what it implies? It implies that you know better than God what is right and wrong. If God says something is right, then it is right, no? By refusing the order, aren't you telling God that you believe you know better than he what is the correct thing to do? Given God's infinite knowledge and wisdom, can you make that claim?
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| Why do you not have any interest in what I have to say? How am I wasting your time? You ask about something, which to me is imposible, and then don't wish to hear why it is imposible. Surely a negative reply needs qualifing. |
Because you're not answering the question, you're evading it. Observe:
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| The figment of my imagination would be the Goddess telling me to kill somebody. There are many people in secure institutions who firmly believe their god told them to kill. They are deluded.
If I believed the Goddess told me to kill, I would be mentally ill, so I can't tell you what I would do under those circumstances. |
The question has nothing to do with the mental stability of people who think their gods are talking to them. The question clearly stated that you have received the order to kill from your god and it has been proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the order did legitimately come from your god. So whether or not you're mentally ill is not relevant. The situation given states that you have had it proven to you that your god really did give you that order. It is worded in such a way that if you do not accept that your god has ordered you to kill, you must be mentally deficient, because it has been stated that it was proven to you. Read the first post again. It's right there, in bold.
This question is a thought expermient using a hypothetical situation. If you are unwilling or unable to consider the hypothetical situation, then you are simply not willing or capable of answering the question. In other words, you're wasting my time.
If you could prove that your god(dess) would never make such a request of you, that would be of marginal interest, but you haven't even done that. All you've done is point out you would be crazy if you thought your god was telling you to kill someone, to which my response is: duh. But you haven't really answered any question asked. No one asked if you thought it was possible that your god would ask that question. And no one asked if you would be sane if you believed they did. You were asked to assume you have been asked and have confirmed the request actually comes from your god, and then come to a decision based on that. Or alternatively, prove that your god is incapable of making that request. You have done neither. Hence, again, you are just wasting my time.
If you want to take a serious stab at answering the hypothetical situation, go ahead. Or, alternatively, if you want to try to prove that your goddess could never ask such a thing, go for it, but see this post for the start of a rebuttal to that.
| tidruG wrote: | ||
No matter who the person is, I would not kill someone without a rational reason why, be the "commanding officer" my president, my dad or my soulmate. |
See, that's why i deliberately worded the question as "god". ^_^ It's too easy for most people to dismiss when you use a regular person as the figurehead, because you can just say that people are not infallible.
| tidruG wrote: |
| But I've been hesitant to answer your question regarding God because I'm not very religious, so my idea of God is not completely as defined by my religion. I've always thought of God as more or less spectatorial judge. He cannot really completely control my destiny. Possibly, He has some control over the world he created, but once he gave it a life of its own and free will, he cannot have absolute control over it. What is He the judge of? I'm not completely sure... perhaps the judge of our actions here on Earth (I believe in the afterlife). But I don't yet have enough faith in this theory (I need to perfect it some more before I'm satisfied) to kill someone if God comes down and says "Kill this chap, and I promise you Heaven" |
Hm, you're almost describing a "clockmaker" concept of god - a deist concept. Very roughly described, it goes like this: the god makes the universe, then starts it, and whatever happens, happens. Some forms of deism almost imply that god is not sentient, but you don't seem to be on that end of the spectrum.
Would you describe god as a manager? He can choose to micromanage when he feels the need, but generaly he lets the company run itself, according to the rules he set when he incorporated. Nevertheless, he is always observing the performance of the employees to determine who's getting lucky at bonus time. Does that sound close?
At any rate, the hypothetical situation doesn't really require a god who controls destiny. Far from it in fact. Consider: does god have infinite or near-infinite knowledge and wisdom? Wouldn't he be aware of things that that you are not? Thus, wouldn't it be safe to assume that there is a motivation for the request that is beyond your understanding? So (coming back to the question), if god ordered you to kill - even if he opted not to give you the reason - isn't it logical to assume that he has one, and possibly a really, really good one? In which case... wouldn't it be wise to kill when he asks?
| Indi wrote: |
|
If you were asked by God to kill someone, and you refused, do you understand the consequences of that refusal? Do you understand what it implies? It implies that you know better than God what is right and wrong. If God says something is right, then it is right, no? By refusing the order, aren't you telling God that you believe you know better than he what is the correct thing to do? Given God's infinite knowledge and wisdom, can you make that claim? |
Congratulations, you made me really confused.
But after getting deeper into that matter, I can't add anything more to what I wrote. I guess my point of view on God is somewhat different from what you wrote. The God I believe in does not punish people during their lives, but gives them a chance to change [Matthew 13:30], and definitely does not let the people to give out judgements and punishments [John 8:7]. What is more, everything we do to any single person, affects Him personally [Matthew 25:40], and He would never sentence someone to death just because of experimenting on me. [All of the examples I took were from the New Testament, I know that the Old Testament is full of wars and killing, but remember that it was adressed to people living more than a thousand years before Christ and written by someone at their spiritual level. Jesus has updated the message of God a little bit ]
That's why if I were to kill in the name of God, I wouldsimply refuse, because it would be definitely not in the name of the God that I believe in. [I know that throughout the history, there were thousands of people who claimed exactly the opposite, but luckily, there were also some that gived away their lifes in the same name. I guess the first interpretation has something to do with 'commercial' religion for the masses
.]| the_mariska wrote: | ||
Congratulations, you made me really confused. But after getting deeper into that matter, I can't add anything more to what I wrote. I guess my point of view on God is somewhat different from what you wrote. The God I believe in does not punish people during their lives, but gives them a chance to change [Matthew 13:30], and definitely does not let the people to give out judgements and punishments [John 8:7]. What is more, everything we do to any single person, affects Him personally [Matthew 25:40], and He would never sentence someone to death just because of experimenting on me. [All of the examples I took were from the New Testament, I know that the Old Testament is full of wars and killing, but remember that it was adressed to people living more than a thousand years before Christ and written by someone at their spiritual level. Jesus has updated the message of God a little bit ]
That's why if I were to kill in the name of God, I wouldsimply refuse, because it would be definitely not in the name of the God that I believe in. [I know that throughout the history, there were thousands of people who claimed exactly the opposite, but luckily, there were also some that gived away their lifes in the same name. I guess the first interpretation has something to do with 'commercial' religion for the masses .] |
i can't say i'm surprised that you're confused. ^_^ It's a confusing subject. Most people can't even wrap their minds around the question, let alone answer it. For example, you've tripped over it yourself.
When you say: "The God I believe in does not punish people during their lives..." i have to point out that i said nothing about punishment anywhere. ^_^ YOU added that element. Same for: "... He would never sentence someone to death just because of experimenting on me." Where did i say you were being experimented on? Where did i say this is a test of faith? It was a test of faith in the case of Abraham, but that doesn't mean it would be one in your case. You have interpreted the question using your own narrowed interpretation, and then answered it based on those grounds. i said only that God ordered you to kill. i did not say that the person you had been ordered to kill was being punished (on the contrary, i said that you had no idea why you were supposed to kill them), and i did not say that you were being tested. The only thing i said was God ordered you to kill. Anything else you found you put there yourself.
i also didn't say you were being asked to "kill in the name of God". i said GOD ORDERED YOU TO KILL. You're deliberately twisting the question to make it more convenient for yourself.
You quoted verses that don't really have bearing on the question - only on the interpretation you made up - except for the last one (Matthew 25:40) but only sorta kinda. Nevertheless, even within the new testament (incidently, Jesus himself said that you couldn't just ignore the old testament the way you're doing, but that's not really an issue here), there are dozens of instances where you are instructed to obey God's laws. Peter says in Acts 5 that God's law is above the laws of men. Peter and John both say the same thing in Acts 4. In fact, i challenge you to find one instance in the entire bible where it says it's ok to ignore a command from God. Are you saying that it's ok to ignore a command from God?
If it's not ok to ignore a command from God, and if God commanded you to kill someone, would you still refuse?
firstly
what about you "indi"
make a short " yes or no"
and by the way
do you believe in god?
which religion you follow?
and do you think answer to your question differs from person to person up to his character or his religion?
secondly
i think this question as absurd as this question
"can god (ALLAH in my word)" create a bigger(or more powerful)
creature than himself."
what about you "indi"
make a short " yes or no"
and by the way
do you believe in god?
which religion you follow?
and do you think answer to your question differs from person to person up to his character or his religion?
secondly
i think this question as absurd as this question
"can god (ALLAH in my word)" create a bigger(or more powerful)
creature than himself."
If i would be 100% sure it's from God and not from some scammer i'd be happy to do his will ;>
| Indi wrote: |
| See, that's why i deliberately worded the question as "god". ^_^ It's too easy for most people to dismiss when you use a regular person as the figurehead, because you can just say that people are not infallible. |
Which is why I highlighted person
. I saw where you're coming from.
| Quote: |
| Would you describe god as a manager? He can choose to micromanage when he feels the need, but generaly he lets the company run itself, according to the rules he set when he incorporated. Nevertheless, he is always observing the performance of the employees to determine who's getting lucky at bonus time. Does that sound close? |
I guess so... I must admit that all this still requires a lot more thinking on my part.
| Quote: |
| At any rate, the hypothetical situation doesn't really require a god who controls destiny. Far from it in fact. Consider: does god have infinite or near-infinite knowledge and wisdom? Wouldn't he be aware of things that that you are not? Thus, wouldn't it be safe to assume that there is a motivation for the request that is beyond your understanding? So (coming back to the question), if god ordered you to kill - even if he opted not to give you the reason - isn't it logical to assume that he has one, and possibly a really, really good one? In which case... wouldn't it be wise to kill when he asks? |
The more I think of it this way, the more I begin to think I would seriously consider carrying out that order/request from God. However, I'm yet to be fully satisfied about the existence of God, his intelligence, potence, etc. Right now, I'm closer to the believer end of the spectrum, not there yet completely, because I'd believe more whole-heartedly in God if I could get a satisfactory answer to those questions.
And now, just a few minutes later... I'm beginning to think that I would probably not do it unless I see the reason behind it, irrespective of whether God asked me to or a human did. The problem, however, is that one of the major reasons I think twice before doing anything is because I think it would have a positive/negative impact on my afterlife (whether it's heaven/hell or a rebirth), or maybe even later in this life (a simplified, single-lifetime idea of karma)... and what if God decides what happens in the afterlife? Firstly, is there an afterlife? Is there a God? (there's still too many questions to be answered to/by me before I can answer your question)
I understand your question explicitly states that if MY God (implying that God does exist) asked me to, would I kill... but that's just the thing... what is MY God?
I can tell you in certainty, though, that whatever decision I make now will probably not have any bearing on what I would actually do if your situation did arise. I would have to make a decision right then and there. I guess it's just one of those questions where you can't really choose, or rather... don't want to choose... when either decision is made because of your strong belief in an ideal and yet is against another of your ideals in which you strongly believe. So, I'll be honest... I can't really answer your question... it will have to be a sudden decision when (and if) the situation arises... unless of course, I solidify my ideas about God. If and when I have a solid enough idea of God, I will answer your question.
Alternately, if you'd like to create an image of God and ask the question again, I'd try to answer.
This is indeed a confusing question. I don't believe in God but I know that if I had one and if he asked me to kill someone. I'd like to know why but I'm sure I'd do it. Because it's God.
I would have to refuse.
Unless I had actual proof that the message came from god - not just my own belief that it was god.
Othewise even if I was 100% convinced that the message came from god I would have to force myself to accept that it is most likely something wrong with me in my head and no matter how much I believe it was god it really isn't and is just a delusion that I am experiencing.
I mean you hear about it all the time that people say they get messages from god or they are god...
If there was full proof that this was god speaking to me I would then accept the order. I mean proof as in I see a dead person come to life, water turns into wine, I am given some kind of powers etc.
Unless I had actual proof that the message came from god - not just my own belief that it was god.
Othewise even if I was 100% convinced that the message came from god I would have to force myself to accept that it is most likely something wrong with me in my head and no matter how much I believe it was god it really isn't and is just a delusion that I am experiencing.
I mean you hear about it all the time that people say they get messages from god or they are god...
If there was full proof that this was god speaking to me I would then accept the order. I mean proof as in I see a dead person come to life, water turns into wine, I am given some kind of powers etc.
| palavra wrote: |
| firstly
what about you "indi" make a short " yes or no" and by the way do you believe in god? which religion you follow? |
i can't make a short yes or no because i don't believe in a god. In order for me to answer this question, i would have to imagine a god... but which one?
| palavra wrote: |
| and do you think answer to your question differs from person to person up to his character or his religion? |
Yes, but i don't think it should. For each religion there is only one correct answer. For yours (Islam, i presume), the only correct answer is "yes". If Allah tells you to do something, you'd better do it - without question.
| palavra wrote: |
| secondly
i think this question as absurd as this question "can god (ALLAH in my word)" create a bigger(or more powerful) creature than himself." |
Firstly, shouldn't it be thirdly or fourthly and not secondly? ^_^
It is most certainly not an absurd question. It's not a meaningless hypothetical question. As i've already shown, it has already happened - to Abraham. If it's happened before, who's to say it can't happen again. You can't claim to know what Allah will or won't do - that's claiming to know the will of Allah. So any day now, Allah could speak to you and order you to kill someone. You simply can't say this will never happen without claiming to know what Allah's plans are.
And if you are ordered to kill, what will you do? That is not an absurd or meaningless question. It has happened before. It can happen again. What will you do if it does?
| tidruG wrote: |
| I guess it's just one of those questions where you can't really choose, or rather... don't want to choose... when either decision is made because of your strong belief in an ideal and yet is against another of your ideals in which you strongly believe. So, I'll be honest... I can't really answer your question... it will have to be a sudden decision when (and if) the situation arises... unless of course, I solidify my ideas about God. If and when I have a solid enough idea of God, I will answer your question. |
What is the point of asking a question that's easy to answer? ^_^;
You're absolutely right. The question is designed to create a contradiction of faith (for most people - for cold-blooded killers or real religious nuts, obviously it doesn't work). On the one hand, you have a being who is pseudo-infinitely superior to you and who must be obeyed, and on the other you have your own personal moral compass (more on this later). When the commands of your god and the logic and ethics of your own moral standards come into conflict, you're forced to make a decision. Who to follow - my god or myself?
If you just ask that question, theists snap to the stock answer - you follow your god. But when you actually create a situation that really tests that resolve, it all falls apart. It strikes at a fundamental issue in all religion - whether your god is an external thing/entity, or just something internal to you that you have labelled.
| tidruG wrote: |
| Alternately, if you'd like to create an image of God and ask the question again, I'd try to answer. |
That would be pointless. ^_^ The question is intended to make you consider what your god is to you. i could give you concepts of gods ranging from across the spectrum, but there's no real gain in that. You'd just be making a fairly shallow analysis of their gods, instead making a really deep analysis of your own faith.
| KernEnergie wrote: |
| This is indeed a confusing question. I don't believe in God but I know that if I had one and if he asked me to kill someone. I'd like to know why but I'm sure I'd do it. Because it's God. |
That's really kind of the only correct answer. But you can make it more specific if you want.
If your god is all knowing
Then you would be an idiot to refuse. Because your god would be infinitely smarter and wiser than you, you would be a fool to believe that you know better. For all you know, your refusal would mean the start of WW3 and the deaths of billions. You can't second guess a being that is infinitely smarter than you.
If your god is all loving
Then you would be an idiot to refuse. Because if your god is all loving, and if it made such a request of you, there must be a greater motivation that it will not or cannot tell you, but that must have an important benefit. Because if your god really is all loving, then there must be something that you are unaware of that must provide greater benefit to humanity than the evil you're causing. Because an all-loving god would not introduce more evil than good - any evil introduced must be in the service of an even greater good. Thus by refusing the order, you would be allowing the greater evil.
If your god is the one who decides what is right and what is wrong
Then you would be an idiot to refuse. If the god's will is the definition of good, then by refusing that will you would automatically be doing evil.
"God" is a nebulous concept that everyone defines differently. But given some of the most commonly accepted traits of a god, refusal of an order is rather idiotic. And in some cases, downright dangerous.
| Quote: |
| The question has nothing to do with the mental stability of people who think their gods are talking to them. The question clearly stated that you have received the order to kill from your god and it has been proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the order did legitimately come from your god. |
You're not going to like this, but it's a question that has to be asked. How was it proven that the order came from the God/dess?
EDIT. I've just discovered my question is irelevent. I'm short on timenow so I'll explain why tomorrow.
I'd just like to say thanks Indi for this lesson and for being as tenacious as any of my teachers
To be honest, I don't think I would obey. Even though there are places where I am told in the Bible that I am supposed to have unconditional faith, I also have seen the news, where people are killing others based on their faith. I believe that this is twisted, and I would not go that far. That's just sick.
JBot
JBot
If the theists don't ignore the question, they doge it.
The question is simple and reinvents. If God tells you to kill some one and it has been proven to you that it is God asking you (it doesn't madder how its been proven but it has), would you do it?
The question is simple and reinvents. If God tells you to kill some one and it has been proven to you that it is God asking you (it doesn't madder how its been proven but it has), would you do it?
If God told me to kill - and I knew without a doubt that it was God telling me to kill, then there really isn't an option is there? "Obey the Lord your God."
As unlikely as it is to happen, I'd kill - as ordered by God.
How's that for dodging the question?
My justification: God's plan is all-inclusive, and everything happens for a reason.
As unlikely as it is to happen, I'd kill - as ordered by God.
How's that for dodging the question?
My justification: God's plan is all-inclusive, and everything happens for a reason.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| If the theists don't ignore the question, they doge it.
The question is simple and reinvents. If God tells you to kill some one and it has been proven to you that it is God asking you (it doesn't madder how its been proven but it has), would you do it? |
but we believe god tells only to the prophets( like abraham)
And if you where a prophet and god told you to kill?
If a person believes in a God, this is a personal belief, that's how I think. I think that God would never go for that. If so, my belief in that God would just collapse.
CITIZENSHIP values must never be destroid, even by religions.
That's the conclusion I get.
If the Bible says that God commanded to kill, perhaps that's not the case, there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible. And if so, can we doubt that? Was really God who wrote that part of the Bible or were there human influences?
CITIZENSHIP values must never be destroid, even by religions.
That's the conclusion I get.
If the Bible says that God commanded to kill, perhaps that's not the case, there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible. And if so, can we doubt that? Was really God who wrote that part of the Bible or were there human influences?
| woundedhealer wrote: |
| I'd just like to say thanks Indi for this lesson and for being as tenacious as any of my teachers |
Welcome, and thank you.
i believe it's important for everyone to critically examine the more difficult aspects of their beliefs. There is no such thing as a perfect philosophy. There are consequences for whatever you choose to believe. Most people just ignore or gloss over the trickier aspects of what they believe, or downplay how much of their beliefs rely on their own, arbitrary judgement calls.
i made this thread in response to this thread. That thread throws out the challenge to atheists, pointing out that if their values are not externally defined, then they must be internally defined. The most basic internal motivation is self-preservation, often at the expense of anything else (although not always, and i'm surprised no one's caught that trick in that thread yet), so if your belief system is internally defined, then you have to explain how it is that your instinct for self-preservation and self-advancement can be subordinate to the good of a society.
This thread is throwing down the same challenge to theists. If your values are externally defined, then it is possible that the external values may be in opposition to your internal values (unless you believe that you don't have any internal values at all - for example you believe that your sense of right and wrong is really just external entities, angels and devils, whispering in your ear - but in that case, there is no such thing as free will). Theists do consider that problem often, but only in a self-serving way. They only consider cases where their internal motivations are bad (lusts, desires for wealth and power) but the external motivations are good. This scenario is a way of creating a case where the external motivations are negative, and the internal ones are...? Positive (you don't want to kill)? Negative (you're thrilled that you finally have a chance to kill with impunity)? Neutral (you don't want to kill, but neither do you want to not kill - you just do whatever your told)?
(Incidently, it's actually also a rebuttal to the other thread's question. If it were really true that all good motivations come from external sources - gods - then you would be happy to kill when your god asked you to. If this question is difficult at all, it implies that you have good internal motivations - that it is possible to have positive ethics without a god (not only that, but it's possible to have positive ethics in spite of a god). This is the atheist's defence. If it were true that only a god can make you not want to do self-serving evil, then theists should have no problem with the hypothetical question. They should simply shrug and say "i would kill, as told".)
| Soulfire wrote: |
| If God told me to kill - and I knew without a doubt that it was God telling me to kill, then there really isn't an option is there? "Obey the Lord your God."
As unlikely as it is to happen, I'd kill - as ordered by God. How's that for dodging the question? My justification: God's plan is all-inclusive, and everything happens for a reason. |
Honestly, that's the only answer that is "correct", in that it is the only one that is not hypocritical, given the context of most theist beliefs. If you accept that God is superior to you (for example, that he has a plan that you may not be aware of), and that that plan is benevolent, then the only logical response is to do as your told, and not second guess. As i said, you'd be an idiot to do anything else - not because of the threat of punishment, but for the same reasons that a young child is stupid to ignore the warnings of loving parents.
But... are you comfortable with that possibility? As you said, it's unlikely to happen, but not impossible. Are you ok with suppressing your own internal voice that says killing is wrong, causing suffering is wrong? Are you ok with suppressing your free will - willingly surrendering your freedom of choice to do what you feel is right - in order to obey the commands of your god? Are you comfortable with the idea of murdering someone because someone (something) else told you to - without ever knowing or understanding the reason for it?
Er, well if I were certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was God, he existed, and there was no possibility that it was just me going insane... I would.
I'd tell a medical professional of my intention, have myself locked up and examined, and if it were truly meant to be then I assume that a) they wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with me and b) God would somehow help me to escape and carry out his will.
And of course, if it really were God, then he'd probably be damn right wouldn't he?
I'd tell a medical professional of my intention, have myself locked up and examined, and if it were truly meant to be then I assume that a) they wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with me and b) God would somehow help me to escape and carry out his will.
And of course, if it really were God, then he'd probably be damn right wouldn't he?
| Indi wrote: |
|
If this question is difficult at all, it implies that you have good internal motivations - that it is possible to have positive ethics without a god (not only that, but it's possible to have positive ethics in spite of a god). This is the atheist's defence. |
It is possible (to have positive ethics without a god), but illogical. If, as you say, your motives are self preservation/advancement and purely material (having no belief in anything that cannot be explained by natural laws), why would it be wrong to kill, steal and cheat? Why would it be wrong to use homeless people for medical experiments? You would be inhibiting the freedom of a few people, but you would be benefiting the entire society.
Dont get me wrong, I dont think I can call myself a theist. I am also not an atheist, I guess Im sort of on the fence, leaning towards the theist side because in my view atheism leads to anarchy, theism leads to order, not perfect order, but better than every man for himself type of society. So my feeling is, atheism is a step back.
Again I am not vilifying atheists, I have a lot of atheist friends, and they are all nice people. But all of them grew up catholic, their moral values are catholic. They do not cheat, they abhor violence (the real kind) and they respect freedom. But could you teach these values to a child without using some sort of religion as framework?
To be honest though I think most people in the modern world are atheists., even those who claim to be theists, I think if they examine their beliefs closely, they will be surprised to see that they are atheists after all.
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| It is possible (to have positive ethics without a god), but illogical. |
Not everything that is possible is logical. Not everything that is logical is possible. Just because a system of ethics does not have a logical basis, that does not make it invalid.
There is no logical basis for an ethical system based on a deity's commandments, after all. When a Christian says killing is wrong and you ask them why, the only real answer is "because God says so". Why does God say killing is wrong? "Dunno, he just does". There's no basis in logic for such a system of ethics, you're just doing what you've been told.
The same thing applies to atheists, really. Ask them why is killing wrong (assuming you can get away with it and you're not weakening the pack by killing off the strongest, etc. etc. - in short, getting all of the logical answers out of the way), and if you dig deep enough, long enough and hard enough, you going to get the answer "because I feel it's wrong". Why? "Dunno, I just do".
Honestly, if you want my advice, you'd keep the concept of logic far away from a defence of theism and theist ethics. You're only setting yourself up to be torn apart by someone who knows how to do it. If logic is properly applied to theist morality, it all falls apart.
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| If, as you say, your motives are self preservation/advancement and purely material (having no belief in anything that cannot be explained by natural laws), why would it be wrong to kill, steal and cheat? Why would it be wrong to use homeless people for medical experiments? You would be inhibiting the freedom of a few people, but you would be benefiting the entire society. |
*ahem* Where did i say that my (or atheists in general) motives were "self preservation/advancement and purely material"? Read what i wrote more carefully. i said nothing of the sort.
As for the answers to the other questions... atheists aren't stupid, you know. Do you really need an answer any more detailed than that? Can you really not see - using simple, plain, secular logic - why those things are wrong? Do you sincerely mean to tell me that you need a god to tell you not to kill, steal, cheat or perform medical experiments on helpless human subjects? And... just for laughs... why don't you quote me the bible verses that state that human medical experimentation is wrong? Or rape? Or slavery? (Hint: don't take that challenge up. If you know anything about the bible, you know that whatever verse you quote on those topics, i have a dozen more ready that suggest or state clearly that those things are a-ok with God.)
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| Dont get me wrong, I dont think I can call myself a theist. I am also not an atheist, I guess Im sort of on the fence, leaning towards the theist side because in my view atheism leads to anarchy, theism leads to order, not perfect order, but better than every man for himself type of society. So my feeling is, atheism is a step back. |
A step back from what? A world where civilization bases its ethics entirely on religious precepts... aka the dark ages?
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| Again I am not vilifying atheists, I have a lot of atheist friends, and they are all nice people. But all of them grew up catholic, their moral values are catholic. They do not cheat, they abhor violence (the real kind) and they respect freedom. But could you teach these values to a child without using some sort of religion as framework? |
Yes, you can. i was raised atheist from birth. i knew people who were religious in various religions, but what they believed never really came up as a topic of discussion. i met my first Christian missionaries when i was... hrm, can't remember - but by that point i was already fairly well read and aware of the world and world events - 8 maybe? They were from the Berean Bible Institute, and they themselves came from... Maryland i think. Nice people. But my moral framework existed long before i met them.
The way i was taught morals is that they are based on the precept of doing the least harm possible. Why? Because harm is bad. Even an infant knows that. If you harm someone, chances are they're going to harm you back (and this is true even if they don't know that it was you that harmed them - to wit: say you stole Paul's bike, now Paul is without a bike and he needs money to buy a new one, so he steals your radio, even though he didn't know it was you that stole his bike - or he steals Peter's radio who now needs to recover his lost radio and HE turns around and steals your piggy bank, etc. etc.). So if you don't want to be harmed, don't harm others. All you have to figure from there is what is harmful and what is not. Simple.
Of course, that's how i was taught as a child. Such a child-like understanding of morality - essentially "hurting others eventually hurts me" - is fine for a child, but a more adult view requires a little more depth. As i grew, my understanding of the nature of harm, and why it's wrong even when there's no danger of reciprocation, all grew with me. (Which raises the obvious question: what about theist ethics? For a child, it's "don't do wrong because you'll make your god angry (or disappoint him, whatever)". For an adult, it's "don't do wrong because you'll make your god angry (or disappoint him, whatever)". Hm.)
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| To be honest though I think most people in the modern world are atheists., even those who claim to be theists, I think if they examine their beliefs closely, they will be surprised to see that they are atheists after all. |
That statement is non-sensical. If you believe a god exists you're a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist. There's nothing to be confused about. "Does a god exist?" "Yes." "Theist." Or "No/i don't know" means "atheist".
No I will not obey if God order me to do so.
if you believe God is the Almighty,
God know(clearly) how deep the loyality of Abraham to Him.
And God know he will kill his son (already) before God have to test Abraham and speak directly to Abraham.
this story is very contradictive to the God Himself.
God will never do such a thing.
why God need to know something that He already know.
if you believe God is the Almighty,
God know(clearly) how deep the loyality of Abraham to Him.
And God know he will kill his son (already) before God have to test Abraham and speak directly to Abraham.
this story is very contradictive to the God Himself.
God will never do such a thing.
why God need to know something that He already know.
@Indi
when you said --> The most basic internal motivation is self-preservation, often at the expense of anything else (although not always, and i'm surprised no one's caught that trick in that thread yet), so if your belief system is internally defined, then you have to explain how it is that your instinct for self-preservation and self-advancement can be subordinate to the good of a society.
I thought (I may have misunderstood, sorry if i did) :
atheist -> internal motivation -> self-preservation and self-advancement +(this part I added: no belief in anything supernatural) (ultimate prize to have a fruitful/productive/enjoyable life)
is the same as a theist. almost.:
theist -> internal motivation -> self-preservation and self-advancement + belief in supernatural absolute entity (ultimate prize, to get to heaven.)
So an atheist will try and get the most out of this life, while a theist believes this life is not important, but the things you do in it are. In your belief structure, stealing is wrong because you know it will come back to you... sounds like the concept of 'karma'. But in your example there are no supernatural forces that enforce it, and it is actually possible, if you are smart enough, to steal without being affected by the subsequent chain reaction.
Im sure you read the bible more than I do. but i remember somewhere Jesus said "what you do to the least of your bretheren, you do unto me" and "love your neighbor as you love thy self.." or something like that. To me its like a rule of thumb, you dont need to think about the details of the situation (like is slavery bad?) just put yourself in the victims place, and if your not happy with it then its wrong. These ideas are religious concepts (karma, love your enemies..etc) without these ideas, do you honestly think our society would have reached the middle ages?
Religion has provided you with the luxury to become atheist. You were born atheist, but you were surrounded by theist concepts protecting you from true atheism.
when you said --> The most basic internal motivation is self-preservation, often at the expense of anything else (although not always, and i'm surprised no one's caught that trick in that thread yet), so if your belief system is internally defined, then you have to explain how it is that your instinct for self-preservation and self-advancement can be subordinate to the good of a society.
I thought (I may have misunderstood, sorry if i did) :
atheist -> internal motivation -> self-preservation and self-advancement +(this part I added: no belief in anything supernatural) (ultimate prize to have a fruitful/productive/enjoyable life)
is the same as a theist. almost.:
theist -> internal motivation -> self-preservation and self-advancement + belief in supernatural absolute entity (ultimate prize, to get to heaven.)
So an atheist will try and get the most out of this life, while a theist believes this life is not important, but the things you do in it are. In your belief structure, stealing is wrong because you know it will come back to you... sounds like the concept of 'karma'. But in your example there are no supernatural forces that enforce it, and it is actually possible, if you are smart enough, to steal without being affected by the subsequent chain reaction.
Im sure you read the bible more than I do. but i remember somewhere Jesus said "what you do to the least of your bretheren, you do unto me" and "love your neighbor as you love thy self.." or something like that. To me its like a rule of thumb, you dont need to think about the details of the situation (like is slavery bad?) just put yourself in the victims place, and if your not happy with it then its wrong. These ideas are religious concepts (karma, love your enemies..etc) without these ideas, do you honestly think our society would have reached the middle ages?
Religion has provided you with the luxury to become atheist. You were born atheist, but you were surrounded by theist concepts protecting you from true atheism.
NemoySpruce: You tried this in another thread and I tore you're arguments to peaces.
Steeling is wrong cause? 1. You are taking something that dose not belong to you with out the owners permission. 2. It can cause massive financial problems when they have to replace what was stolen. 3. You could steel something they need to live. 4. Things can have allot of sentimental value.
Killing is wrong why? 1. Cause when you kill some one, they are dead, they can't come back. 2. Every one is unique and when a person dies that unique thing is gone for ever.
Rape is wrong why? Cause you are doing harm to that person and the worse kind, mantel harm.
Ethics comes out of morality and morality come from a basic evolutionary principle: social creators have rules cause with out rules social creators can not survive as social creature. As social creators we need rules for our society to exist, those rules are called morels. Morel people are better at surviving in in society thus have a better chance of passing on there DNA. All social creators have rules, those who fallow those rules remain in the social structure while those who don't, don't last on the social structure. Morality is burn into us, we all have a sense of morality not cause of religion, not cause of raising, we are burn with it. This is why those who do wrong justifies there actions.
Steeling is wrong cause? 1. You are taking something that dose not belong to you with out the owners permission. 2. It can cause massive financial problems when they have to replace what was stolen. 3. You could steel something they need to live. 4. Things can have allot of sentimental value.
Killing is wrong why? 1. Cause when you kill some one, they are dead, they can't come back. 2. Every one is unique and when a person dies that unique thing is gone for ever.
Rape is wrong why? Cause you are doing harm to that person and the worse kind, mantel harm.
Ethics comes out of morality and morality come from a basic evolutionary principle: social creators have rules cause with out rules social creators can not survive as social creature. As social creators we need rules for our society to exist, those rules are called morels. Morel people are better at surviving in in society thus have a better chance of passing on there DNA. All social creators have rules, those who fallow those rules remain in the social structure while those who don't, don't last on the social structure. Morality is burn into us, we all have a sense of morality not cause of religion, not cause of raising, we are burn with it. This is why those who do wrong justifies there actions.
I'm sure the Goddess would not order me to kill somebody. There is no precedence that I can find to show She has ever ordered a person to kill another human being.
The Goddess is the Great Mother. A mother protects, nurtures, guides, teaches, loves and provides for her childrens needs. A woman who is worthy of the title "mother" would not order her child to kill someone. She would, if neccessary, kill to protect her child, but would not want her child to be in a position where they had to kill someone. Even when a child becomes an adult, a mother would still want to protect her child if she could because no matter how old that child is, there is still the maternal instinct.
If we relate the Goddess' children to a human family, then what you are suggesting is that a sibling kills another sibling.
Generally speaking, even the most dangerous of animals protect their young offspring with their lives. Would the Great Mother do less than the animals? I think not.
This is what I have learnt to be the Truth. I could add more, like the vows I made when I became a Druid. But as I have learnt that the Goddess would not ask any of her children to kill, it is irrelevant here.
As to the message to kill being proven to come from the Goddess, I've learnt that it could not be satisfactory proved.
The Goddess is the Great Mother. A mother protects, nurtures, guides, teaches, loves and provides for her childrens needs. A woman who is worthy of the title "mother" would not order her child to kill someone. She would, if neccessary, kill to protect her child, but would not want her child to be in a position where they had to kill someone. Even when a child becomes an adult, a mother would still want to protect her child if she could because no matter how old that child is, there is still the maternal instinct.
If we relate the Goddess' children to a human family, then what you are suggesting is that a sibling kills another sibling.
Generally speaking, even the most dangerous of animals protect their young offspring with their lives. Would the Great Mother do less than the animals? I think not.
This is what I have learnt to be the Truth. I could add more, like the vows I made when I became a Druid. But as I have learnt that the Goddess would not ask any of her children to kill, it is irrelevant here.
As to the message to kill being proven to come from the Goddess, I've learnt that it could not be satisfactory proved.
| Quote: |
| It is possible (to have positive ethics without a god), but illogical. If, as you say, your motives are self preservation/advancement and purely material (having no belief in anything that cannot be explained by natural laws), why would it be wrong to kill, steal and cheat? Why would it be wrong to use homeless people for medical experiments? You would be inhibiting the freedom of a few people, but you would be benefiting the entire society. |
Just out of curiosity... but why do most herbivorous animals move around in flocks or herds? Because staying together helps. It benefits an individual when he's in a group so that tasks can be divided, those skilled at one particular thing can do that one particular thing... the same applies to humans... so, basically, for preservation/advancement, the betterment of the society is important for the individual.
Also, just because you don't believe in a God doesn't mean you lack the basic human capacity to live in groups, make friends and fall in love, and to get sentimental. Atheists are also capable of showing charity, pity, sympathy and empathy.
Applying very simple logic (since after college, my brain is tired and I'm not very much in the mood to think too much), I'd also say that killing would be wrong because unless there was a system in place to prevent killing, what would prevent you from being someone else's victim tomorrow? I could venture as far as to say that basically, your subconscious tells you killing is morally wrong because unless you were afraid to do it, and unless you prosecuted those who did, you could end up being killed, and nobody would be punished for it.
| Quote: |
| But could you teach these values to a child without using some sort of religion as framework? |
Why not?
When you tell a child "Don't cheat or God will be angry", you're basically using a scare tactic... you can use a scare tactic based on anything else... instead of the child being afraid to hurt his God, he could be made afraid of hurting his parents "Mommy will be very sad if you steal that boy's pencil".
Once a little older, you can start teaching about manners and ethics, etc.
| Quote: |
| But in your example there are no supernatural forces that enforce it, and it is actually possible, if you are smart enough, to steal without being affected by the subsequent chain reaction. |
"....without being affected by the subsequent chain reaction."
WEll, at least you're admitting that there's likely to be a chain reaction. Chain reactions which cause other chain reactions, and even more chain reactions... until society degrades... every man could be someone waiting to pick your pocket... the really desperate ones murder you for money, or even clothes and food... no one feels secure in their own homes... etc etc...
So, you see... even logically, stealing is wrong...
You could tell me just about anything that any religion says is wrong, and I can give you a logical reasoning as to why it's wrong or harmful.
Non of the answers of the poll is right for me.
I do believe in god, but not that he speaks to me.
Someone could make me think that god orders me to kill by hypnotising me.
But then I probably will be unable to refuse. But if my mind is totally clear I will refuse.
I do believe in god, but not that he speaks to me.
Someone could make me think that god orders me to kill by hypnotising me.
But then I probably will be unable to refuse. But if my mind is totally clear I will refuse.
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| @Indi
when you said --> The most basic internal motivation is self-preservation, often at the expense of anything else (although not always, and i'm surprised no one's caught that trick in that thread yet), so if your belief system is internally defined, then you have to explain how it is that your instinct for self-preservation and self-advancement can be subordinate to the good of a society. I thought (I may have misunderstood, sorry if i did) : atheist -> internal motivation -> self-preservation and self-advancement +(this part I added: no belief in anything supernatural) (ultimate prize to have a fruitful/productive/enjoyable life) is the same as a theist. almost.: theist -> internal motivation -> self-preservation and self-advancement + belief in supernatural absolute entity (ultimate prize, to get to heaven.) |
i said it was the most basic instinct. i didn't say it was the strongest, and i certainly didn't say it was the only one. There are many primal motivations that are unrelated to self-preservation - and some of them override the instinct to self-preserve. We are all biologically inclined to do what's best for the species. Not for ourselves. It just so happens that in the overwhelming majority of situations, there is no conflict - what's good for us is good for the species.
It's not hard to manufacture a conflict, though. Using this thread's theme as the starting point, just say that you've been ordered to kill someone, and if you don't you will be killed instead. However, because atheism encompasses a much broader range of beliefs than theism, and because many of those beliefs give the individual ultimate authority over their own destiny, it's impossible to give a general answer to that scenario for all atheists.
(Also, atheism does not necessarily mean amysticism. It doesn't even mean non-religious - there are atheist religions. Atheism means nothing more and nothing less than not having a belief in a god. There are atheists who believe in karma, and atheists who believe that good and evil are actual "physical" forces, etc. etc. You have a very narrow view of what atheism is.)
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| So an atheist will try and get the most out of this life, while a theist believes this life is not important, but the things you do in it are. In your belief structure, stealing is wrong because you know it will come back to you... sounds like the concept of 'karma'. But in your example there are no supernatural forces that enforce it, and it is actually possible, if you are smart enough, to steal without being affected b |