And God commandeth, "Kill your mother."

[Acriku]

You assume that you would have to be insane to have God talk to you. Then the people in the bible are insane? God talked to some of them, God talked to Noah, for example, so it doesn't take an insane person to be spoken to by God. And assumptions beforehand do not allow you to take the question in its full intention. Please relieve yourself of this assumption, and all other assumptions that you form by the idea that God has spoken to you, and just answer the question. '

In memoria Braveheart, "Yes, Father. The Almighty says don't change the subject; just answer the fucking question"

[DjCiD]

Well I do believe that God used to speak to people but has not in a very long time.

The thing about that hypothetical question is there is really no win~win answer where everyone is happy... just like when my wife asks the what if she was horribly disfigured in an accident would I still love her question. So I tell shoot yeah I'd even give here her own room in the garage and charge people money to look at her ;) My own lil freak show :P ;D

[Acriku]

It may be troubling to answer, but it holds a purpose that, in my mind, is worth answering it. So I ask emprworm, putting all technicalities and semantics aside, would you do it?

[Dude_Doc]

Or what about these questions:

"Would you kill your whole family to save mankind?"

"If a thief robbed your house, and you and your girlfriend were in bed and suddenly you wake up because of all the noise the thief made. Your best friend enters because he saw the thief entering. The thief somehow gets himself in a position where he must kill either your best friend or your girlfriend (mind, this girlfriend of yours is like the absolute love, not just some 'do-done' chick). What would you choose?"

"Your best friend once said: "If I become blind, deaf and unable to do anything, I want to die, rather than live like that". One day, this very unpleasant accident happen, and your friend becomes, like he said, deaf, blind and unable to move more that his hands, maybe turn his head, but never walk and etc. He ends up in some hospital. Of course, he gets fed and trained, so he doesn't die. The doctors tell you that he will live for 50 more years. You know very well that you can't teach him to read or talk, because he is totally unable to recieve information to do such things. You also know that the technology for synthetic eyes and ears is far away, researchers and scientists even say it can take another 100 years (yes I know they didn't consider these things back in the 50's, but in this case we'll imagine so :P).

You visit him at the hospital, and you find a gun with a silencer and a pair of plastic-gloves, laying on the floor (somehow hehe). It is late, and there isn't much people working here now. Your friend for one, is alone, sleeping. You remember what he said that day, so you pick up the gun and the gloves. You know you can escape without anyone knowing, and with no traces left behind. Question: Would you kill your friend?"

Now think about these, and answer :).

[Acriku]

To be fair, I will.

1) Yes I would kill them. They would understand that I had to kill them, and even though I'll be crying a river while I'm doing it, I would understand it to be a necessary evil.

2) Assuming the other dies when I choose one of them, I would choose my girlfriend, since my emotions would takeover and save the one that I love more.

3) Why does it have to be a gun? Why can't I just kill him by plugging everything out, the IV, monitors, etc, whatever is holding onto him? But if that doesn't kill him, I would kill my friend with the gun in the head, because I would not want to live like that, and since there is no hope for him, I would pull the trigger. Of course I would feel guilty the rest of my life.

Now get back on topic! :P

[Dude_Doc]

Thank you. And now to your question: No. I would not do this. Even if I knew I would be punished, or maybe go to hell for a few weeks (believe me, 1000 years in hell...).

What would I think of it? Well, even if this were "just like that", I would be mentally forced to believe that there must have been some cause that resulted in this "punishment" or what you call it.

"Are you a mentally ill maniac in a cage?"

-Yes: Then you are a mentally ill maniac in a cage.

-No : THE MENTALLY ILL MANIAC IS LOOSE!

[TMA_1]

1) Yes I would kill them. They would understand that I had to kill them, and even though I'll be crying a river while I'm doing it, I would understand it to be a necessary evil.

So you understand why man or woman would kill his mother "hypothetically asked of course" for God. Abraham would have willingly killed his own son for God. Shouldnt we as believers do the same?

But by the whole question, it is saying that God is imperfect so this hypothetical question is insidiously subersive. There is no purpose to it so there are alterier motives.

[Acriku]

I see nowhere does it imply that God is imperfect. And it shouldn't imply anything, since it is was hypothetical question.

[TMA_1]

hehe semantics. ;)

[emprworm]

"You assume that you would have to be insane to have God talk to you."

Well I originally said that I would first need to KNOW (not believe) that it was God speaking to me. That would mean that an eternal, infinite being would make himself known in time and space (not just a voice in my head). This appearance in time and space would be objective and visible to ....yup you got it...even ATHEISTS. The question of whether or not someone "believes" in God is irrelevant because faith is no longer an issue. The Being has presented himself in reality so that faith is no longer necessary. Therefore those who are unbelievers will now see and know that there is an infinite God. THerefore, when this infinite, eternal being presents himself in time and space, making himself objectively visible to any human being, regardless of their prior faith, so that that even the atheist Acriku is plainly aware that this being indeed does exist (faith is no longer relevant since the quesiton of God's existence is now objecitvely answered), then when this objectively known superior being gives a command, you are darned straight I would obey it.

[Acriku]

Well I originally said that I would first need to KNOW (not believe) that it was God speaking to me. That would mean that an eternal, infinite being would make himself known in time and space (not just a voice in my head). This appearance in time and space would be objective and visible to ....yup you got it...even ATHEISTS.

Oh ok, so then you deny the bible right? Just making sure.

The question of whether or not someone "believes" in God is irrelevant because faith is no longer an issue. The Being has presented himself in reality so that faith is no longer necessary. Therefore those who are unbelievers will now see and know that there is an infinite God. THerefore, when this infinite, eternal being presents himself in time and space, making himself objectively visible to any human being, regardless of their prior faith, so that that even the atheist Acriku is plainly aware that this being indeed does exist (faith is no longer relevant since the quesiton of God's existence is now objecitvely answered), then when this objectively known superior being gives a command, you are darned straight I would obey it.

Oh could this be why I asked monotheists only? Possibly?

[TMA_1]

good post empr. Complete logic.

you meant christians acriku. Your smarter than that. I have not seen any other religious group pop their heads up. You knew it was directed towards christians. silly boy.lol ;)

[Acriku]

I meant monotheists, seeing as they believe in one god, and any person of another religion than christianity that was monotheistic could have spoken up, and one did that I know of. So no, it was not directed towards christians. Since it was using a generic God, it was for Christians, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc.

[emprworm]

its irrelevant, Acriku whether they are monotheists or not. You asked a loaded question. In philosophy, that is considered a fallacy.

For others in here to learn more about this fallacy Acriku comitted called the "Loaded Question" go here:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_complex.htm

(note: using an atheist website to explain this fallacy was intentional)

The question Acriku asked was loaded because he is trying to trap people by making the question only viable to monotheists, when in reality, if God were to make Himself known in time and space, this would be objective so that deists, atheists, polytheists, monotheists, pantheists....all of them would once and for all know the answer to the question "Does God Exist?"

TIME A: no one knew for sure if God existed.

TIME B: God makes himself known objectively in time and space and issues a command

Whether or not you were a deist, atheist, polytheist, monotheist, or a pantheist at TIME A is irrelevant because there is no longer the issue of faith. There is now certainty at TIME B. All of those people at TIME A will now be monotheists at TIME B. Under this type of scenario, whatever command God issues at TIME B will be obeyed, most likely by anyone- including the x-atheists (who were atheists at TIME A, but Theists at time B). This includes Acriku.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, I asked only monotheists because why would God command someone who did not believe in him? In the bible, did God talk to anybody that didn't believe in him? Your "TIME A TIME B" theory doesn't hold up, because in the bible, when God spoke to Noah, everyone didn't suddenly know God existed and then converted. They didn't believe Noah, so there goes your theory. God is only commanding you, not anybody else.

[TMA_1]

lol... hangin by a thread of a noodle. sad

[Gobalopper]

My answer would depend on a number of factors. In some cases I could see it happening in others I wouldn't. Not all questions can be answered with a simple yes/no unless you set out every single possible factor which you can't in this case.

[Acriku]

Well explain which circumstances and what your answer would be for each? Remember, this is all for curiousity, so the request of a yes/no answer can be expanded.

[Gobalopper]

I just said I couldn't do that, there are too many to list or time to think of them.

[emprworm]

did God talk to anybody that didn't believe in him?

numerous amount of people.

Saul of the old testament.

Saul of the new testament. just to list a couple

All those in the vicinity of the point where God makes himself known in time and space are able to see Him. This is the ONLY case (God being known objectively) where I would obey His command. And so would anyone else - atheist or theist.

[rogue1896]

Why is everyone having such a hard time with this? if it bothers you so much with the fact it has to do with God then change the question.

Would you kill your mother if not doing so meant eternal pain?

So you understand why man or woman would kill his mother "hypothetically asked of course" for God.

The question he answered concerned the welfare of billions of people. The question he's asking concerns the welfare of just yourself. you're taking it out of context.

[TMA_1]

yup. Saul was a total pharasee. Staunch views in the laws and codex's.

In a vision, saul (who was later given the name Paul) saw a bright light and vision from God.

Saul... Saul, Why do you persicute me?

Who are you? that I may know who I am persicuting.

It is Joshua, I am the one you are persicuting.

A total life change in a matter of seconds. From killing christians with a word, he gave the word of christ to unbelievers like and unlike him.

[Gobalopper]

"Would you kill your mother if not doing so meant eternal pain?"

Eternal pain would mean going to hell, I don't see many people going to hell because they didn't kill their mother...

[Acriku]

Wow I did not know that, interesting. But if you are having a problem with this question so much, then don't answer it. :) And sorry Gob I misunderstood, I thought you meant you couldn't with a "yes/no" request.

[rogue1896]

well it would be because you disobeyed God or something. but then i just incorporated God into the question so it makes the whole thing void. damn, i really thought i had a solution to this argument.