Killing in the name of...

[_asbestosman]

I don't know that I could kill anyone--especially my own child.

However, hypothetically I could justify the use of deadly force against my child just as I can for certain circumstances--say if my child was an immediate threat to the lives of other people.

The problem with God commanding me to kill anyone--especially my own child is that 1) God is omnipotent so He doesn't need me as His henchman. 2) It is far more likely that I'd misinterpret such a thought as coming from God than that it actually does come from God. Furthermore, the results of making a mistake here are far worse than ignoring a prompting to kill that actually did come from God. Last I checked, it's easier to repent of that kind of disobedience than it is to repent of murder. Far better to err on the side of life.

Well, unless that individual turns around and harms millions of other people, but there should be other ways to try and prevent that.

Oh, and 3) God doesn't need to prove my faith. He already knows. If He needs me to exercise faith, He's smart enough to find ways that will test me without threatening others. I wonder how different the story of Abraham would be if God commanded Abraham to be the sacrifice. I always thought it was kind of sad when in X-men Magneto tried to be a kind of savior by sacrificing someone else.

[_The Dude]

I always thought it was kind of sad when in X-men Magneto tried to be a kind of savior by sacrificing someone else.

Magneto was just trying to follow sky daddy's example. I wonder if the writers meant to parody the christian belief system.

[_just me]

Gad,

I disagree with your assessment on the following grounds -

We are given only two postulates that we must assume are true: God is real, and God is good.

I believe your analysis is only valid in so far as we become certain that the command of God corresponds with the person's sincere belief. Yet, I'd argue that our given postulate "God is Good" conflicts with the so-called test. I agree with Kant - the act of commanding this act calls into question that a being giving this command could be called "God" on the grounds s/he can not be called good. Again, if God is real as well as good, if the command is questionably "not good", it stands to reason it is equally questionable that it is truly of God.

The question of it being a test of one's faithfulness is, in and of itself, another matter. For all we know, a truly Good God may wish to assess just how far his/her creations are willing to go in holding to right principles - even to the point of questioning God. In other words, who's to say the recorder of the myth has it right that Abraham actually passed the test?

Great points!

[_Sethbag]

False to all. We try to set up a problem with an articifially-created moral framework, but then ask us to judge it by our real moral framework. It's a context problem. So I say false, and if you reply that "but God really does exist, really is good, and He commands you to kill your child!" then I say that God can f*** himself.

Then the moral framework by which you make your lovely comment may some day allow you to kill your neighbor. Or, better yet, your neighbor may make the same claim for killing you. And you have no moral ground to stand on. Certainly a legal one, but not a moral one.

How does it follow that a moral framework by which I reject the notion that gods go around telling people to slaughter their children will someday allow me to murder my neighbor?

The real moral framework within which I currently make real-world value judgments precludes me from accepting a hypothesized framework in which gods go around telling people to slaughter their children for whatever f****d up reason religious people think gods sometimes do this.

Great! Then I'll see you at the next anti-abortion rally. I'll bring the rice krispy treats.

I'm not a huge abortion fan, however I do differentiate between people who already exist as independently-living beings and spots in a petri dish. If you want to argue that gods sometimes go around ordering people to slaughter their sons or daughters, but doing something that might cause a spot in a petri dish to become unviable is innately evil, then you're free to make your argument, but I can't guarantee I'll be amenable to it.

Oh wait! Your indignation is only reserved for God? Well, your moral code certainly is confusing if not convenient.

God doesn't even exist. Those for whom my indignation is roused happen to be people, trying to convince me or others that slaughtering one's child is a rational and morally correct thing to do if the voices in their head have told them to do it.

[_Gadianton]

h,

While I agree with you that the God of scripture is a bad man, I think I answered true to Brade's thought experiment.

If we assume that God exists and that he is good, then if God done said it, we should go and do it. Specifically, I was replying to Brade here,*

At least, I should say 'true', because I believe the level of evidence I would demand to accept the command would be extremely high.

Why? Brade himself assumed that God exists and is omnibenevolent, so for this thought experiment, the right answer is that we should let the killings begin. I think Brade, and probably you, make a better case for calling into question the veracity of the command in a different thought experiment, or better, the real world, where the assumptions of God's existence (with the usual predicates) have not been clearly enforced.

As good LDS boys and girls, we need to be ready to kill anyone without hesitation if God requires it of us. And I'm just pointing out that in context of a test, it would be no test if God first proved his existence and treated you to a course amongst the angels on Celestial ethics. What I'm saying, is that if you choose to be LDS, then the test will not come in this very easy way that will not try your faith. Prepare ye then to redden your hands with the blood of your neighbor if God so requires it. And spare not the vile of acid.

A religion professor of mine at BYU, a Harvard Phd, told us that if God, or the prophet, instructed him to kill someone, that he would do so.




*I was using my phone so that's why i didn't quote...

[_Mercury]

The story of Abraham reminds me of something a meth addict would do.

[_Hoops]

How does it follow that a moral framework by which I reject the notion that gods go around telling people to slaughter their children will someday allow me to murder my neighbor?

Why shouldn't you? You have no moral standing to not. the question isn't whether or not you would, the question is whether or not you could.

I'm not a huge abortion fan,

Which means this moral code that causes you to shake your fist at God has not really been thought through.

however I do differentiate between people who already exist as independently-living beings and spots in a petri dish.

What differentiation is that?

If you want to argue that gods sometimes go around ordering people to slaughter their sons or daughters, but doing something that might cause a spot in a petri dish to become unviable is innately evil, then you're free to make your argument, but I can't guarantee I'll be amenable to it.

That's not my argument. You made your statement and I'm wondering how you logically arrive at that statement.

God doesn't even exist.

For this argument He does.

Those for whom my indignation is roused happen to be people, trying to convince me or others that slaughtering one's child is a rational and morally correct thing to do

There are plenty of instances where one could conclude that killing a child is rational. The moral position doesn't exist if God doesn't exist.

if the voices in their head have told them to do it.

Yeah, I get it. A silly and rather mundane shot at Believers.

[_Hoops]

The story of Abraham reminds me of something a meth addict would do.

The story of atheists reminds me of the story Narcissus.

[_Jersey Girl]

brade

Also, Jersey Girl, I'm not quite sure how to challenge you. You're answer is that in the case where God in fact does command you, and God is good, you should not do what God commands. I'm not sure why you think you shouldn't. It might help me if you would explain why you believe in this case that you should not do what the good God commands.

I'm afraid I've lost interest in this, brade, but I did want to see what you and others had to say. My reasoning has to do with the Bible, both the Old Testament and New Testament.

I find it odd that you used the story of Abraham as the catalyst for your questions and nowhere on this thread has anyone referred to the Bible for their answers.

The story of Abraham itself, for example. There are obvious discrepancies in the text. Either that or Abraham was a devoted believer and a liar.

The development of what we think of as Christian doctrine has been totally ignored on this thread.

In any case, I hope you got the discussion that you anticipated.

[_Sethbag]

How does it follow that a moral framework by which I reject the notion that gods go around telling people to slaughter their children will someday allow me to murder my neighbor?

Why shouldn't you? You have no moral standing to not. the question isn't whether or not you would, the question is whether or not you could.

It does not follow from the argument I actually made. You are inserting your prior knowledge of my atheism into the argument, and saying I have no moral reason not to kill my neighbor, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

Anyhow, I do reject the notion that it's only morally wrong for me to murder my neighbor if there's a God around telling me not to.

I don't know if you know this, but LDS theology has it that murder is wrong because it's inherently wrong, not because God said so. God, in this matter, is irrelevent. I have, in theory, just as much moral ground for saying murder is wrong as the Mormons do.

I'm not a huge abortion fan,

Which means this moral code that causes you to shake your fist at God has not really been thought through.

Are you trying to say that one can only not be a huge fan of abortion if one believes in God? So all people who don't like abortion must believe in God? What exactly are you trying to say? Would you mind fleshing this out? If it takes you more than one sentence to explain yourself, please feel free to type out more - I'm getting weary of trying to tease out your full argument, while you reply in half-measures with drive-by one-liners.

however I do differentiate between people who already exist as independently-living beings and spots in a petri dish.

What differentiation is that?

People who already exist as independently-living beings are independently-living beings, while spots in a petri dish are not. This isn't rocket science. Somewhere between spot-in-a-petri-dish-hood and full-borne-human-being-hood is a fuzzy line where the potential person transitions into what I would regard as the fully-fledged human. Where is that line? I don't know. It's somewhere after "small mass of cells" stage and somewhere before "about to be borne fully normal and viable" stage.

The moral position doesn't exist if God doesn't exist.

Non sequitur.