Would you kill ... for God?

[Acriku]

Yes acriku the original thing "is" .... but it is also "good" because it seems logical that a perfect being would create something that has some sort of worth or magnificent quality.  God makes something ... lets say sex... he makes it for reproduction of our species... he made it that way because he obviously thinks it is an appropriate  and good way for us to reproduce.  Its also a good way to share intimacy and bond with a mate.  All very good things.  Now an evil entity comes along and perverts or distorts this good original thing... it twists sex into rape... into beastiality... into things not intended...

But you wouldn't know sex is a good thing and bonding is a good thing unless you didn't have it before. THAT is the original. You cannot define nor appreciate what is good without knowing what is evil. They are mutually-inclusive polarities.

And i said i think the holocaust and the killings in africa were casual killings of mere men and not the commandment of God..... i agree if God commanded you to kill someone then it wouldnt be casual but you are assuming that *i* think the holocaust or the african killings were sanctioned by God which is a false assumption.

If it happened, God allowed it. That isn't casual. That's part of God's plan.

Yes perhaps there are many crazy people in the world.... and perhaps there are people who do have their conscience aligned properly and are able to receive guidance from God.  In 70 some years when most of us are buried in our graves we'll find out soon enough who was crazy and who was not... so its not like i am worried about not ever knowing.

Or we won't know ;-)

I never said i know God's intentions... but i do think God is logical and if he made an atonement sacrifice with Jesus... then it wouldnt make sense to still punish people "Old testament style"  .. if he wanted to give out contract killings then he wouldnt have had to use Jesus in the first place.  Its not that i am trying to say i know God's intentions 100% but i do know that he has a principled being or a nature and if he did something for a certain reason then certain logical conclusions can be drawn.

Think critically Acriku.

You're concluding the nature of God. If you do not know his nature 100%, then you cannot rule anything out. It is not contradictory to say God could order someone to kill another person. He could have a very good reason for doing so. He may bring the person back to life after the test, or stop you before you do it. Either way, he can do it. It doesn't have to be a punishment, it doesn't even have to have anything to do with the person to be killed. It is all part of God's plan, after all. And thanks for the laugh. I always get a kick when a Christian tells me to think critically.

[Egeides]

Good cannot exist without evil, else how would good define itself? The same applies vice versa.

Just as "dark" is defined by the absence of light, not light by the absence of dark. Those are old old ideas.

Jack Leaf: Do you have a Christianity defined by all God might say as it'll make it right, or is God "limited" to always be as good as can be, "pure light" by my last paragraph's example?

[Jack Leaf]

A point that I have made myself, many times before. Good and Evil in an objective sense do not exist. You can't defeat me with my own arguments.

Well, actually I wasn't attacking you. More like backing up.

Jack Leaf: Do you have a Christianity defined by all God might say as it'll make it right, or is God "limited" to always be as good as can be, "pure light" by my last paragraph's example?

God is ultimately good even though (s)he/it may do evil to achieve her "objectives." That said, everything God makes is right. For example, hurricanes and tsunamis (if made by God) cannot be ultimately evil because God is ultimately good. People may die, yes, but God never said that living bodies were that important after all.

As a side note, I believe that most of the Holy Bible is made up fiction instead of "God's word."

[Egeides]

God is ultimately good even though (s)he/it may do evil to achieve her "objectives." That said, everything God makes is right. For example, hurricanes and tsunamis (if made by God) cannot be ultimately evil because God is ultimately good. People may die, yes, but God never said that living bodies were that important after all.

If I use the metaphor I brought:

- God would not create darkness for the sake of it but rather limit it to its minimum (using whattever means). Or-

- someone could say that humans are somehow able to force themselves into pragmatic harsh reality from the "Ideal of Good" (ie.Heden story/metaphore/else).

Does it fit with your idea? If so, is it a matter of he/He being the Creator or does it demand God to act good (even if we don't rationally see the move at some point)?

As for the value of living things, I personally think that Jesus is in good part about that. Serenity, compassion, etc etc.

No?

[nampigai]

I don't believe there is a god.

I'll only kill to defend my self or my loved ones.

[GUNWOUNDS]

But you wouldn't know sex is a good thing and bonding is a good thing unless you didn't have it before. THAT is the original. You cannot define nor appreciate what is good without knowing what is evil. They are mutually-inclusive polarities.

If it happened, God allowed it. That isn't casual. That's part of God's plan.

Or we won't know ;-)

You're concluding the nature of God. If you do not know his nature 100%, then you cannot rule anything out. It is not contradictory to say God could order someone to kill another person. He could have a very good reason for doing so. He may bring the person back to life after the test, or stop you before you do it. Either way, he can do it. It doesn't have to be a punishment, it doesn't even have to have anything to do with the person to be killed. It is all part of God's plan, after all. And thanks for the laugh. I always get a kick when a Christian tells me to think critically.

You can define what is good and appreciate it without knowing evil.

[Dante]

But the state of affairs prior to the introduction of evil may not be 'good.' They may just be what is. How can anything be defined as good or positive without a negative to contrast it with? Without a negative contrast, it isn't good. It just 'is.'

[GUNWOUNDS]

But the state of affairs prior to the introduction of evil may not be 'good.' They may just be what is. How can anything be defined as good or positive without a negative to contrast it with? Without a negative contrast, it isn't good. It just 'is.'

But then we must ask ourselves... is the "IS" the original?.. If the "IS" is original then it is Good... as a Deity is the one who says what is Good or bad.

[Dante]

That would imply that anything made to follow an original (or to phrase it better, 'created in the likeness of an original'?) is inferior to that original, in that it is further from god. That the initial state, what is, will always be superior to what follows it.

But this doesn't make sense. Man evolved after monkey. Or if a biblical topic must be chosen, Lilith was created before Eve. And Eve was created from Adam, while Lilith was created independently, by god...

It also requires a belief that things have been getting steadily worse ever since creation. Which, if Jesus dies for all our sins, shouldn't be the case.

(Dammit! I had to start thinking again! :P)

[GUNWOUNDS]

That would imply that anything made to follow an original (or to phrase it better, 'created in the likeness of an original'?) is inferior to that original, in that it is further from god. That the initial state, what is, will always be superior to what follows it.

But this doesn't make sense. Man evolved after monkey. Or if a biblical topic must be chosen, Lilith was created before Eve. And Eve was created from Adam, while Lilith was created independently, by god...

It also requires a belief that things have been getting steadily worse ever since creation. Which, if Jesus dies for all our sins, shouldn't be the case.

(Dammit! I had to start thinking again! :P)

Umm yes.. God will always be superior to us... i dont see how that doesnt work for you.

[Dante]

Some things are better than their originals. Technology of virtually all kinds displays that. Clocks, computers, musical instruments, firearms, assembly lines, vehicles... And some people are certainly, if one applies a specific value system, superior to those who came before them. If everything continually got worse, then there would be no such word (or concept) as 'improvement.'

[GUNWOUNDS]

Some things are better than their originals. Technology of virtually all kinds displays that. Clocks, computers, musical instruments, firearms, assembly lines, vehicles... And some people are certainly, if one applies a specific value system, superior to those who came before them. If everything continually got worse, then there would be no such word (or concept) as 'improvement.'

The concept of perfect computers clocks and moral people already exist in God's mind.  Anything that is created now or is "improved" is simply trying to get back to that original form.  Surely the thought of a perfect computer or perfectly moral person was conceived in God's mind before mankind ever attempted to construct a computer or attempt to be righteous.

[Dante]

In which case so was evil. In god's mind that is. Which should be inconcievable or something, since he can't abide sin... So either god thought of evil before anyone else ever did... or it was created spontaneously by something other than god.

Which brings us neatly to another point, can there be perfect evil? As in, an evil without flaws? Of course one could argue that anything evil is inherently flawed from the beginning, in which case, oxymoronic though it may be, a perfect flaw. Something so perfectly itself. Is that possible?

Because if it is... Then something got better. Evil never used to exist, if god was all there was in the beginning, so evil has improved if it exists now.

But if it doesn't... Then neither can perfect good exist. Because there is no negative. No reflection. Nothing to compare it to. It might be 'better than good.' But not 'perfect' good.

[GUNWOUNDS]

In which case so was evil. In god's mind that is. Which should be inconcievable or something, since he can't abide sin... So either god thought of evil before anyone else ever did... or it was created spontaneously by something other than god.

Which brings us neatly to another point, can there be perfect evil? As in, an evil without flaws? Of course one could argue that anything evil is inherently flawed from the beginning, in which case, oxymoronic though it may be, a perfect flaw. Something so perfectly itself. Is that possible?

Because if it is... Then something got better. Evil never used to exist, if god was all there was in the beginning, so evil has improved if it exists now.

But if it doesn't... Then neither can perfect good exist. Because there is no negative. No reflection. Nothing to compare it to. It might be 'better than good.' But not 'perfect' good.

Evil cant be perfect since it depends on something else to pervert ... therefore it can never be perfect as independance is part of perfection.

[Dante]

Not necessarily something good. Just something. Say god spawns a rock and a baby. Neither is inherently good or evil. And then say someone comes along, picks up the rock, and bludgeons the baby to death. 'Evil' has been created, but there was no good to begin with. Just neutrality. Or a potential to do either good or evil, which ammounts to the same thing. Unless one believes that all of god's creations are perfect, in which case see *.

I wouldn't say that independence is part of perfection. A perfect populated world would require perfect people, thus depending on them. These people in turn would need food, water, shelter, each other, all existing in co-dependence in creating a perfect world. And the people would have perfect organs, perfect cells, perfect atoms, each of which would have to have perfect electrons in perfect arrangement... And even if they didn't the concept of a perfect world, person, country, clock, fish, all depend on something else to define them. The same is true of evil, the same is true of good. The same is true of beauty, ugliness, happy, sad, up, down, and other such concepts. Each requires the other in order to define itself, and none is completely independent. Therefore independence cannot be part of perfection.

Evil needs good in order to exist. But good needs evil in the same way. Without evil, good is just 'what there is.' If one accepts this as perfect because all of god's creations are perfect, then one has to do the same thing with (for example) Adam and Eve. Both of whom were flawed as they were suceptable to delusions of grandeur, among other things.

Another point to consider. There is evil in the world. If one believes in objective morality (which we all know I don't, but just for the sake of argument), then this is not in dispute. So, how did that evil get there? Either God created it, and therefore isn't completely good (even if he had good intentions, evil is evil), or someone else did. Someone else took on the role of Creator. If God created it, as he created all things, then evil has to have a form of perfection, because it was created by the perfect being. If someone else did, then evil does not necessarily have a perfect form, but it proves that improvement is possible (evil was created. Even if it is evil, the process of creation is always positive from the point of view of that created) and that things can move toward perfection, rather than away from it.

*If all of god's creations are perfect, and evil was created by god (for whatever purpose), then evil can be perfect. If evil was not created by god, then it was created by something created by god. Does that make god responsible?

Now that I think about it, why on earth am I participating in this? God doesn't exist, good and evil don't exist. That's my perspective.

[Acriku]

You can define what is good and appreciate it without knowing evil.  Its called ignorance is bliss.  You can be happily ignorant... walking along with your wife having a fine time never knowing what rape is and then some man jumps out of the bushes and starts raping her then you have these feelings full of rage that you have never felt before.

You're not imagining a world without any evil. A lot of Christians argue, and I can see their point, in response to why God created evil that it is necessary for evil to exist so that what is good can be appreciated as good. If you can know what is good without evil, then there is absolutely no reason for an all-good God to have created evil.

Many girls who are raped by their fathers at a young age instinctively know its wrong as it doesnt feel good nor right to them.  Its their first time being raped yet they knew they were happy without rape before they even experienced rape for the first time.

Um, they think it's wrong because their body is being violated. How were they happy before the rape? Because of something that caused them to be happy. And what caused them to be happy? Good. But there had to be the lack of the good for them to be happy about the good.

Secondly,.... Yes God could ask you to kill someone for reasons other than punishment.... and that would fit under the "God can do anything" clause but my statements were referring directly under the assumption that it would be a "punishment" as was everyone else here in the thread.  If you want to try to debate this without any defined limits of what you are actually trying to "get at" then fine blab away.  If your whole point of the thread was that God can do anything then what was the point of this thread?  It would be more productive to actually define some topic or limit to what you are refering to as to make the discussion have some direction. Actually forget it... it doesnt matter, i know you write these topics out of boredom, or are using us as test subjects for a school project.  ;)

The focus of the thread, as can be seen by my question, is whether or not you would kill for God. It's an interesting question, to see if people would be able to take their faith to the highest level and kill somebody for it. I didn't focus on the victim. You're talking for everyone in this thread, when you're completely wrong. You even got the assumption of my reasons of making this thread wrong. You were better off not making any assumptions, gunwounds. Your track record isn't the greatest.

[Acriku]

Evil cant be perfect since it depends on something else to pervert ... therefore it can never be perfect as independance is part of perfection.  That pretty much nails the coffin for evl right there.  Secondly just because God could conceive of someone or something perverting his perfect standards and principles doesnt mean he abides by evil.  It means he conceived of perfection and then understood the perversions that could come about... which means that the conception of evil is merely  perversion of the conception of good which means evil is both inferior and dependant upon good in conception, material, or practice.  There is no way around it.  Evil can never be independant or original... it must always wait for something good to spawn (whether it be a concept, material, or practice) before it can even exist. 

You could very well argue that evil just "is" and good is the betterness (for lack of a better word, opposite of perversion) of evil, and use the same evidence. There's something evil that just is, and created after is a betterness of the evil, namely good. For betterness to exist, it must always wait for something evil to spawn.

[Edric O]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm betting that the topic of discussion has quickly drifted into Divine Command theory. Essentially, the question surrounding Divine Command theory is as follows:

Are good things good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good?

I staunchly believe that good and evil are inherent in the Universe, not directly dependent on God's commands. Of course, God was the one who created the Universe, and, in doing so, He has set the standards for good and evil within it. But those standards are now fixed, and cannot be changed without changing the entire nature of the Universe. God cannot arbitrarely decide that mass murder is good and love is evil, any more than He could decide to kill Himself or create another God more powerful than Him.

I have a favourite quote on the subject:

"So in saying things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all His glory. For why praise Him for what He has done if He would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?"

-- Leibniz

But going back to the particular subject of killing because God ordered me to, my answer is "well, that depends..."

First of all, I would ask God why He wanted me to kill. If He gave no reason and said something along the lines of "trust me", I would explain to God that I see three possibilities: Either (1) He wants me to kill that person in order to set off a complicated chain of events that will lead to something good, or (2) He wants to test my faith, or (3) He is not really God, but some other entity deceiving me. I would continue by asking God if (1) is the case; and, if He says yes, I would ask Him to explain the chain of events in brief. If He does, I will follow His command and kill the person I'm supposed to. If He does not answer or scorns me for questioning Him, on the other hand, I'd have to assume that either (2) or (3) are the case. And I would not follow His command. I would explain that I have faith in a good and loving God, and that the time of Abraham is long past. If He wishes to test my faith, then let it be said that my faith is of such a kind that I will not follow any command - even one apparently spoken by God Himself - if that command contradicts God's Law.

[Acriku]

The Divine Command theory has a bit to do with it, you're right. I highly disagree that good and evil are inherent in the universe. This is because it is not 100% the same with every subject. One person may find killing evil, another may find it good. Pray tell, what are these standards you speak of?

I agree with that quote, if what God commands is good only because he commands it, then it is pointless to call it good, and its glory is not there anymore. However, if you are correct and the standards are fixed and independent of God, then could we not apply those standards to God and call him evil?

As for your answer, thank you for it. You say your faith does not go against God's Law, but isn't God's Word his law? Killing someone does not go against what is done in the Bible (but it does in what is said), since it is often commanded to kill someone for sinning. Or, like the scenario you suggested, it might lead a series of events that ultimately reach a greater good. Would you stake an eternal life in hell on whether or not God responds to your questions?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Edrico bascially brought up the old testament when he said that the time of Abraham's faith is over.

[Acriku]

Didn't know you were so good at math: 1 indirect allusion to the victim = most people are thinking about the victim.  ::) Please, I already said that it doesn't have to be punishment, so get over it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Didn't know you were so good at math: 1 indirect allusion to the victim = most people are thinking about the victim.

[Dante]

The phrasing of the question implies that it is actually god doing the demanding, so questions of believability shouldn't really be taken into consideration. I just took it as an assumed truth that it was actually god, rather than questioning identity.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The phrasing of the question implies that it is actually god doing the demanding, so questions of believability shouldn't really be taken into consideration. I just took it as an assumed truth that it was actually god, rather than questioning identity.

Good point.

[Edric O]

The phrasing of the question implies that it is actually god doing the demanding, so questions of believability shouldn't really be taken into consideration. I just took it as an assumed truth that it was actually god, rather than questioning identity.

Ah, but in that case the question is completely unrealistic, because, as I pointed out in another thread some time ago, it is impossible for God to prove His own existence.

Of course, you might ask, "but what if God simply goes into your mind and makes you believe that He is God?" He could do that, of course... but so could a highly advanced alien species. There could easily be aliens out there with the power to brainwash you into believing they are gods.

I highly disagree that good and evil are inherent in the universe. This is because it is not 100% the same with every subject. One person may find killing evil, another may find it good. Pray tell, what are these standards you speak of?

I am a utilitarian, which puts me in the larger category of consequentialism. As a consequentialist, I believe that something is good or evil depending on its consequences. As a utilitarian, I believe that something is good if its consequences produce net happiness for Humanity, and something is evil if its consequences produce net suffering for Humanity.

I've started a new topic to explain the different kinds of ethics.

You might say that the happiness of Humanity, which is the utilitarian standard of good, is not directly connected to any of the inherent properties of the universe and therefore we have no reason to call it the absolute good. I realize that this is a problem, and I am currently thinking of creating an ethical theory of my own, based on the following axiom:

Entropy is Evil.

Thus, any accumulation of anti-entropy is good; Life is the greatest accumulation of anti-entropy that we know of, and Humanity is the most anti-entropic form of Life. As such, anything that promotes the well-being of Humanity promotes anti-entropy and is therefore good.

This idea has several advantages. First, it is based on a fundamental physical property of the universe (entropy) and therefore has a justifiable claim to be absolute. Second, it serves as a basis for utilitarianism (one may in fact call it a generalization of utilitarian principles). Third, it fits very neatly with Christian beliefs about the apocalypse: If Entropy is Evil, then the total Evil in the universe is on the rise and there is nothing we can do to change that. Evil will triumph in the end unless it is stopped by some sort of divine intervention from outside the universe.

I agree with that quote, if what God commands is good only because he commands it, then it is pointless to call it good, and its glory is not there anymore. However, if you are correct and the standards are fixed and independent of God, then could we not apply those standards to God and call him evil?

Of course we could apply those standards to God, but I believe we will conclude that He is good.

As for your answer, thank you for it. You say your faith does not go against God's Law, but isn't God's Word his law? Killing someone does not go against what is done in the Bible (but it does in what is said), since it is often commanded to kill someone for sinning. Or, like the scenario you suggested, it might lead a series of events that ultimately reach a greater good. Would you stake an eternal life in hell on whether or not God responds to your questions?

The thing is, I have no way to tell whether I'm actually talking to the real God or not. It might be Satan trying to deceive me. So I'm risking eternity in hell no matter what I do. The only good way to make an educated guess on whether I'm actually talking to God is to judge whether the commands I am given sound like something God would command me to do. If "God" shows up in my room and commands me to do something that is very uncharacteristic of Him, then I'm probably talking to an impostor, not the real God.