Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

Options
12357…11

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    the reality of our sense of right, wrong, good, bad, justice, injustice etc (independently of the god's will) still exist, although we now have no label for them. So let's take the underlying causes of those realities, which are things like our sense of compassion, empathy, fairness, reason etc. Many of us will still base our behavior on compassion, empathy, fairness and reason when those senses clash with the supposed commands of this god.
    This seems to be the difference between the Christian god and the Greek gods. The Greek gods were thought to be individually fallible, and to sometimes squabble amongst themselves, or "behave badly". But it was thought that what pleased them, in general, was "good" behaviour among mortals and gods. But who decided what was good? Hence the Euthypro Dilemma.

    The Christian god is said to be immutably good, and therefore he becomes the standard for goodness. To follow his commands and/or revealed will is to be good. In this scenario, morality is simply acting in accordance with the god's will, which is always good and just in the normal sense of those words.

    The Islamic position is apparently slightly different; they give priority to acting on god's will, and recognise that this can sometimes conflict with our intuitive sense of empathy or morality. This makes it more dangerous. It seems that if the Islamic god changed his mind on something, then the new command would become "right" and the obsolete one "wrong". The christian god, being immutable, is unable to change his mind (although perhaps that makes him not quite omnipotent?)

    Take the story of Abraham & Isaac;
    God sent Abraham up a mountain to kill his son Isaac. Just before the (evil?) deed was done, the god told Abraham he was only joking; it was just a test. Abraham was very relieved, and they all laughed it off.

    Now, the first time I heard that story, I knew it was morally repugnant.
    Because if it was objectively wrong to kill the boy, then it did not matter whether the god had decided to do it on a whim, it would still be wrong.

    The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, taught that it was "good" to kill the boy so long as God supported that course of action. In other words, the only objective morality is to mimic the behaviour of this god character. However the behaviour itself is entirely subjective, it derives only from the god's point of view. Whereas most people will intuitively know that killing the boy was always going to be wrong.

    The problem for Christians is that they have moved on to a position where god's will and what is righteous/pious/intuitively moral is supposed to be the same thing.
    But a quick look at the bible reveals lots of instances where they are not.
    Such as the stonings or the above "threatened boy sacrifice" incident, or the "jesus taking his anger out on a fig tree by turning it to stone" incident.


  • Options
    #123
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    Take the story of Abraham & Isaac;
    God sent Abraham up a mountain to kill his son Isaac. Just before the (evil?) deed was done, the god told Abraham he was only joking; it was just a test. Abraham was very relieved, and they all laughed it off.

    Now, the first time I heard that story, I knew it was morally repugnant.
    Because if it was objectively wrong to kill the boy, then it did not matter whether the god had decided to do it on a whim, it would still be wrong.


    God grants life to persons for a duration of His choosing. And he takes it away again at a moment of His choosing. No ones death takes God by surprise. No ones death takes place in such a way as to frustrate God's ultimate plan wrt that person.

    Whether the person is a boy and the instrument of removal of life is the boys father or whether the person is an old man and the instrument of removal of life is God-cause death by old age - it makes no difference.

    If you are to find God killing "morally" repugnant then you need to be consistant and find it repugnant across the board. And need to explain where on earth you get the idea that you, Isaac .. or anyone else, has an unassailable right to retain that which God gave them for longer than he decides to given it.


  • Options
    #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God grants life to persons for a duration of His choosing. [...] Whether the person is a boy and the instrument of removal of life is the boys father [...] it makes no difference.
    There's your problem, right there.

    How exactly do you conclude safely that the father is acting with the authority of the creator of the universe when he chooses to execute his son. Rather than, say, having simply gone bonkers?

    Does it not worry you that people feel free to grant themselves this authority? And that religion allows, even encourages, them to? And that most (religious) people seem to have no problem with that?


  • Options
    #125
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If you are to find God killing "morally" repugnant then you need to be consistant and find it repugnant across the board.
    Indeed I always consider the murder of an innocent to be repugnant.
    And need to explain where on earth you get the idea that you, Isaac .. or anyone else, has an unassailable right to retain that which God gave them for longer than he decides to given it.
    I find no evidence that this god gave me anything.


  • Options
    #126
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    There's your problem, right there.

    How exactly do you conclude safely that the father is acting with the authority of the creator of the universe when he chooses to execute his son. Rather than, say, having simply gone bonkers?

    That's not my problem. That's the fathers problem.

    But if it were about to happen today before my eyes I'd take my overall understanding of "the unfolding drama of redemption", conclude that this person was bonkers and take steps to stop him.





    Does it not worry you that people feel free to grant themselves this authority? And that religion allows, even encourages, them to? And that most (religious) people seem to have no problem with that?

    Are you pro-choice?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    Indeed I always consider the murder of an innocent to be repugnant.

    Hopefully you'll be convinced of your guilt before Judgment.

    I find no evidence that this god gave me anything.

    But he gave Isaac it and you find that story morally repugnant. Continue..


  • Options
    #128
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's not my problem.
    In all fairness, it is your problem :) you're the one who's trying to make out that this view of things is reasonable. The above is a massive hole in it.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But if it were about to happen today before my eyes I'd take my overall understanding of "the unfolding drama of redemption", conclude that this person was bonkers and take steps to stop him.
    Fair enough, that's what I'd do. But by doing so, you're implicitly stating that either the father is mistaken in thinking he's receiving instructions from the deity (in which case, you could be wrong yourself too), or the deity is providing instructions which you disagree with (in which case, you're placing your authority above that of the deity).

    Which is it?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Are you pro-choice?
    I don't see what relevance this has to this discussion, but for the record, I believe that an implanted foetus holds broadly the same human rights a newborn does.


  • Options
    #129
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Hopefully you'll be convinced of your guilt before Judgment.
    I'm as guilty as Isaac was I suppose. But don't worry about me, I have a plan.
    I'll convert on a saturday evening when I'm nearly dead, all my sins will be expunged. Then I'll pull the plug on a Sunday morning. Knowing that God is a "somewhat unstable" character whose greatest pleasure is being worshipped by lots of people. He should be in a most generous mood at that time, and I'll be given a front seat in heaven, while you will probably end up in the back row, despite a lifetime of service :)


  • Options
    #130
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    In all fairness, it is your problem :) you're the one who's trying to make out that this view of things is reasonable. The above is a massive hole in it.

    I don't see where reasonableness comes into it.

    What a person does is ultimately their affair. If they reckon it's God's instruction and there's a God and it isn't his instruction then that one outcome. If they reckon it's God's instruction and there is a God and it is his instruction then that's another outcome. If they reckon it's God's instruction and there is no God then that's another outcome.

    I might have a view and you might have a view and we find him unreasonable according to our views. But that's not going to change a whole lot since he's entitled to a view too and can conclude his own actions reasonable.



    Fair enough, that's what I'd do. But by doing so, you're implicitly stating that either the father is mistaken in thinking he's receiving instructions from the deity (in which case, you could be wrong yourself too), or the deity is providing instructions which you disagree with (in which case, you're placing your authority above that of the deity).

    I'd be be supposing him mistaken (there's a God but God didn't instruct him so) and you'd be supposing him mistaken (there's no God to instruct him so). We could both be mistaken but we operate as we think best. You and me both. And the father.


    I don't see what relevance this has to this discussion, but for the record, I believe that an implanted foetus holds broadly the same human rights a newborn does.

    Define foetus (expressed in weeks from conception) ..for the record :)

    It's relevance has to do with us granting ourselves all sorts of authority. Some would grant themselves the right to kill the unborn. Other the right to chop hands off thieves. Still others to rape the planet in order to build and sustain empires and comfortable living standards.

    Folk grant themselves all sorts of authority to do all sorts of things to their fellow man. Whilst concerned on one level, I also see it as part of something that will be wrapped up finally and dealt with in satisfactory manner. So I'm not left utterly distraught by it.


  • Options
    #131
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    I'm as guilty as Isaac was I suppose. But don't worry about me, I have a plan.
    I'll convert on a saturday evening when I'm nearly dead, all my sins will be expunged. Then I'll pull the plug on a Sunday morning. Knowing that God is a "somewhat unstable" character whose greatest pleasure is being worshipped by lots of people. He should be in a most generous mood at that time, and I'll be given a front seat in heaven, while you will probably end up in the back row, despite a lifetime of service :)

    Great. Now the other bit

    But he gave Isaac it and you find that story morally repugnant. Continue..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Great. Now the other bit
    I don't understand what question you're asking.


  • Options
    #133
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's not my problem. That's the fathers problem.

    But if it were about to happen today before my eyes I'd take my overall understanding of "the unfolding drama of redemption", conclude that this person was bonkers and take steps to stop him.








    Are you pro-choice?

    Do you love non sequiturs?


  • Options
    #134
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    I don't understand what question you're asking.

    You said you found the story of Isaac morally repugnant. The story of Issac sees God being the one to give Issac life for a time of God's choosing. What possible problem could you have with God in the story?


  • Options
    #135
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Do you love non sequiturs?
    Tadpoles.


  • Options
    #136
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Honestly I think you have some of the most warped reasoning I have ever heard. I can't decide if you are just trying to wind us up or (and I hope it isn't the case) you actually believe what you are writing.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God grants life to persons for a duration of His choosing. And he takes it away again at a moment of His choosing. No ones death takes God by surprise. No ones death takes place in such a way as to frustrate God's ultimate plan wrt that person.

    Whether the person is a boy and the instrument of removal of life is the boys father or whether the person is an old man and the instrument of removal of life is God-cause death by old age - it makes no difference.

    If you are to find God killing "morally" repugnant then you need to be consistant and find it repugnant across the board. And need to explain where on earth you get the idea that you, Isaac .. or anyone else, has an unassailable right to retain that which God gave them for longer than he decides to given it.
    Then how can you view any murder as morally bad, if it cannot occur outside of gods plan and god is the ultimate good, then it must follow that serial killers and their ilk are simply implementing that plan according to gods will. It sounds a lot like you are arguing that nobody should have a right to life. What exactly does that say for a persons own free will, I don't see how you could incorporate that into your belief but my understanding is that it is a part of all christian dogmas.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Define foetus (expressed in weeks from conception) ..for the record :)

    It's relevance has to do with us granting ourselves all sorts of authority. Some would grant themselves the right to kill the unborn.
    And yet you are against abortion? Is abortion a special kind of murder which frustrates gods will?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You said you found the story of Isaac morally repugnant. The story of Issac sees God being the one to give Issac life for a time of God's choosing. What possible problem could you have with God in the story?
    It sounds like you are saying that because you believe god created Issac, Issac ultimately has no rights beyond what his creator gives him and if he created him specifically with a plan in mind, Issac cannot have rights contravening that. To draw an analogy, if I was diagnosed with a heart disease that will kill me in 18 years, would it be correct to decide with my wife that we will have a child and in 18 years I will harvest his organs to keep myself alive? Just because I might have a plan without which another person wouldn't exist, doesn't give me the right to override the rights of that other person after they do exist.


  • Options
    #137
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You said you found the story of Isaac morally repugnant. The story of Issac sees God being the one to give Issac life for a time of God's choosing. What possible problem could you have with God in the story?
    God is ordering Abraham to carry out a murder in the story.
    Knasher's reply above explains why that is morally wrong.

    So antiskeptic, if you heard a voice in your head, which you believed to be God, and the voice commanded you to strap explosives onto yourself and detonate in a crowded bus station, would you obey?


  • Options
    #138
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Knasher wrote: »
    Honestly I think you have some of the most warped reasoning I have ever heard. I can't decide if you are just trying to wind us up or (and I hope it isn't the case) you actually believe what you are writing.

    That's the rhetoric out of the way. Onto the argument..

    Then how can you view any murder as morally bad, if it cannot occur outside of gods plan and god is the ultimate good, then it must follow that serial killers and their ilk are simply implementing that plan according to gods will.

    God doesn't plan that the murder happens, people do. God's ultimate plan can take account of whether or not a murder takes place. The murder is wrong. But not influential to the point where it usurps Gods ultimate aim.

    It sounds a lot like you are arguing that nobody should have a right to life. What exactly does that say for a persons own free will, I don't see how you could incorporate that into your belief but my understanding is that it is a part of all christian dogmas.

    There is my right to life in so far as it concerns another person taking my life from me.

    And there is my right to life as it concerns God taking it from me.

    I have the former (says God) and not the latter (says God)

    I also have a God given freewill. That is to say: I'm free to operate within the constraints God permits me (which are pretty wide if you consider what Hitler was permitted to do) for as long as God permits it and for the purposes he has in giving me a freewill.


    And yet you are against abortion? Is abortion a special kind of murder which frustrates gods will?

    I'm against all murder. Murder is killing illegitimally (i.e. without God's say so whether that say so is by direct instruction or via inferred permission (eg: self defence)).

    Clearly, God cannot murder - no matter how many he kills.


    It sounds like you are saying that because you believe god created Issac, Issac ultimately has no rights beyond what his creator gives him and if he created him specifically with a plan in mind, Issac cannot have rights contravening that.

    Whilst it isn't because I believe in God that I hold that. Even if it was only a fictional story the in-story fact would remain the same. Which is as you say: the only rights Isaac has are those given him by his Creator. I mean, where else can he get them?

    To draw an analogy, if I was diagnosed with a heart disease that will kill me in 18 years, would it be correct to decide with my wife that we will have a child and in 18 years I will harvest his organs to keep myself alive? Just because I might have a plan without which another person wouldn't exist, doesn't give me the right to override the rights of that other person after they do exist.

    The only fly in this ointment is that you aren't a creator. You partake in the creation but you're not the creator.

    That said, since atheist morality is utterly self-decided upon, your choosing to (silently) infer your child as having rights only means you bow to a source of morality outside yourself. That is your perogative.

    But were you to decide to align your morality otherwise (which is also your perogative) then you just as easily decide your child has no rights and carry on harvesting without so much as a by your leave.

    The fact that others by assert their morality over your morality so as to prevent this harvest doesn't alter the core of the issue.


  • Options
    #139
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    God is ordering Abraham to carry out a murder in the story.

    A murder is an unrighteous killing. Abraham cannot be carrying out an unrighteous killing if God is the one condoning it.


    So antiskeptic, if you heard a voice in your head, which you believed to be God, and the voice commanded you to strap explosives onto yourself and detonate in a crowded bus station, would you obey?

    You mean out of the blue? Or, like in Abrahams case, after a long association with God and his voice such that I was certain it was God doing the instructing. If the latter then sure. Why not?


  • Options
    #140
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Am sorry to say, my steak was a little overdone Michael.


  • Options
    #141
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    So antiskeptic, if you heard a voice in your head, which you believed to be God, and the voice commanded you to strap explosives onto yourself and detonate in a crowded bus station, would you obey?
    According to this post, I'd imagine the answer is a uncharacteristically clear "yes".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God doesn't plan that the murder happens, people do. God's ultimate plan can take account of whether or not a murder takes place. The murder is wrong. But not influential to the point where it usurps Gods ultimate aim.
    Well you have already stated that god knows exactly when somebody is to be murdered, so it must be your view that the murder is a part of that plan even if it isn't an critical part of it.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I also have a God given freewill. That is to say: I'm free to operate within the constraints God permits me (which are pretty wide if you consider what Hitler was permitted to do) for as long as God permits it and for the purposes he has in giving me a freewill.
    So you only have freewill in so far as it corresponds to gods plan. And if gods plan requires the death of a certain person and wishes to use you for that purpose, that is perfectly acceptable? (And seeing as you brought up Hitler, was his actions corresponding to gods plan? After all the deaths of the people he killed must be a part of gods plan as you define it.)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Clearly, God cannot murder - no matter how many he kills.
    Nope, I don't think that is clear at all.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You mean out of the blue? Or, like in Abrahams case, after a long association with God and his voice such that I was certain it was God doing the instructing. If the latter then sure.
    How will you judge the difference between you being insane or actually hearing the voice of god. You wouldn't be the first person to commit murder and claimed to be acting on gods instructions, are these people correct in that assertion?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Why not?
    Almost certain you are just messing with us now. I mean, come on.


  • Options
    #143
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Knasher wrote: »
    Well you have already stated that god knows exactly when somebody is to be murdered, so it must be your view that the murder is a part of that plan even if it isn't an critical part of it.

    I used the term 'ultimate' plan in my last post to indicate the difference between his overall objective and the various ways that objective can be arrived at. Whether the murder takes place or not won't alter the final objective being reached.

    That God knows the murder will happen doesn't mean he want's it or plans it. Free agents murderering and God knowing it beforehand and permitting them to murder doesn't mean he plans the murder to happen.

    * that said, it might be that God has no objection to the death of the murdered person at this time, whilst he takes no joy in the murderer murdering.

    How will you judge the difference between you being insane or actually hearing the voice of god. You wouldn't be the first person to commit murder and claimed to be acting on gods instructions, are these people correct in that assertion?


    In much the same way I arrive at conclusions about any aspect of reality. I assess all the information at my disposal and assume that what makes sense to me is the best I can do in deciding on the nature of that reality.

    This, whether figuring there is a computer screen on front of me or whether God is talking to me.


    Almost certain you are just messing with us now. I mean, come on.

    Ask robindch does he think I'm messing with you now. (I am to an extent messing with you in that I realise plain-speak answers which lack all the nuance that would (or should) temper your incredulity - will tend to leave you incredulous. Answers such as "of course I'd bomb a crowd if I was certain it was God telling me to").

    I'm just waiting around for MN to get back to the supposed Euthyphro Dilemma and having a bit of (truthful) fun in the meantime :)


  • Options
    #144
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    According to this post, I'd imagine the answer is a uncharacteristically clear "yes".

    And this post too.


  • Options
    #145
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    You mean out of the blue? Or, like in Abrahams case, after a long association with God and his voice such that I was certain it was God doing the instructing. If the latter then sure. Why not?
    So not if you had just recently become mentally ill, only if you had been mentally ill for some time. That is... comforting...?
    antiskeptic wrote: »

    That God knows the murder will happen doesn't mean he want's it or plans it. Free agents murderering and God knowing it beforehand and permitting them to murder doesn't mean he plans the murder to happen.
    Us puny humans have an interesting concept in homicide in relation to intent. In order to murder a person, in the legal sense, on must have intended to cause death or really serious harm. This caused some issues over the years with people saying they did not actually intend death or really serious harm, so no murder.

    In order to "fix" this what constituted intent changed. Now when a person carries out an act, or fails to carry out an act where there is a duty of care, and whilst he does not directly intend the consequences, but those consequences are a virtually certain result of his actions, then he is held to have intended the consequences. When that consequence is death, then the offence, assuming the other requirements are fulfilled, is murder.

    Your god is the biggest murderer in history.

    MrP


  • Options
    #146
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    sure. Why not?
    Well, there are thousands or even millions of religious zealots out there like you, so I won't feign indignation. At least you answered honestly.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm just waiting around for MN to get back to the supposed Euthyphro Dilemma and having a bit of (truthful) fun in the meantime :)
    OK, suppose you are engaged in some righteous killing on God's behalf. Maybe slitting the throat of a boy like Isaac, or trying to cut off someone's head with a sword. And the person whose time is up, according to God, is struggling and pleading with you to let him go.
    Do you think you would feel any empathy towards them, any pangs of remorse for what you were doing? Because if you did, that would indicate you felt a sense of morality independent of god and god's will.
    A hypothetical question obviously (or hopefully) so you can't give an exact answer, but you get a sense of the dilemma there. If morality exists outside of this god, then there is the possibility that the god can be in the wrong.


  • Options
    #147
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    antiskeptic wrote:
    That God knows the murder will happen doesn't mean he want's it or plans it. Free agents murderering and God knowing it beforehand and permitting them to murder doesn't mean he plans the murder to happen.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Us puny humans have an interesting concept in homicide in relation to intent. In order to murder a person, in the legal sense, on must have intended to cause death or really serious harm. This caused some issues over the years with people saying they did not actually intend death or really serious harm, so no murder.

    In order to "fix" this what constituted intent changed. Now when a person carries out an act, or fails to carry out an act where there is a duty of care, and whilst he does not directly intend the consequences, but those consequences are a virtually certain result of his actions, then he is held to have intended the consequences. When that consequence is death, then the offence, assuming the other requirements are fulfilled, is murder.

    Your god is the biggest murderer in history.

    MrP


    You're arguing up the wrong tree. The above wasn't presented as an argument to justify God killing not being murder.

    In order to argue God killing murder you've have to figure out how his killing anyone is unrighteous. I can't see how anyone could argue that without figuring before which court God is to be judged.

    Seems to me that if God gave us life under the condition that he can take it back when he likes then I can't see how him taking it back when he likes could be considered problematic. It is his to give and take away. Surely?


  • Options
    #148
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    Well, there are thousands or even millions of religious zealots out there like you, so I won't feign indignation. At least you answered honestly.

    I do hope you'll see me as answering a hypothetical. It's not a situation that is ever going to happen

    If you understood the context of God laying waste to populations by instructing his agents to do the killing in the Old Testament - then you would know God isn't going to instruct me to kill anyone.


    OK, suppose you are engaged in some righteous killing on God's behalf. Maybe slitting the throat of a boy like Isaac, or trying to cut off someone's head with a sword. And the person whose time is up, according to God, is struggling and pleading with you to let him go.
    Do you think you would feel any empathy towards them, any pangs of remorse for what you were doing? Because if you did, that would indicate you felt a sense of morality independent of god and god's will.
    A hypothetical question obviously (or hopefully) so you can't give an exact answer, but you get a sense of the dilemma there. If morality exists outside of this god, then there is the possibility that the god can be in the wrong.


    I can give you a much better example than that. Take folk who die in what I believe to be a lost state. Take Col. Gaddaffi for instance.

    I can feel empathy and sorrow because of what it is he let himself become. He was made in God's image just like me and as such had such potential. And he made his choices and allowed himself to immerse himself deeper and deeper into the mire. To the point of being considered a mad dog. To the point of shedding bathfuls of blood in order to cling to what had come to ensnare him. In looking at him in his last moments I see the tiniest glimmer of humanity at the end of a tunnel of depravity (and speculate) it too late for that last trace of humanity to stretch out a hand in order that an ever merciful God could reach out and pull him up from the depths.

    But simultaneously; I have no problem with the same person reaping the full consequence of what they have sown. For Gaddaffi to close his eyes in death only to open them in the next moment and face whatever it is the lost face.

    -

    I can't really speculate what I would feel like were I instructed by God to be the trigger puller in a persons death. But the extent of my empathy would be limited to the above. I wouldn't/couldn't feel there is any wrong being done. For the simple reason that there isn't a wrong being done.

    It's important, life. But it's only a precursor to the main, eternal event. Bear that in mind when considering my perspective.


  • Options
    #149
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You're arguing up the wrong tree. The above wasn't presented as an argument to justify God killing not being murder.

    In order to argue God killing murder you've have to figure out how his killing anyone is unrighteous. I can't see how anyone could argue that without figuring before which court God is to be judged.

    Seems to me that if God gave us life under the condition that he can take it back when he likes then I can't see how him taking it back when he likes could be considered problematic. It is his to give and take away. Surely?
    Quite clearly god or God will not appear beofre a court of law, not least because he is quite unlikely to exist. Therefore discussing his culpability for murder is more of an intellectual exercise. I would have thought you might have worked that out given I make no bones about my feeling towards the existence of gods.

    I have be admit it is most convenient to believe that your god can do no wrong and that, as the creator he can take life with impunity and that will always be right. I suppose when what you really really want your god to be, IE the awesomely good christian god, is totally incompatible with what you see around you in the world, then assertions "like life is his to take back as he sees fit" or "that he can never do wrong" will be essential lest you realise that your beliefs are pathetic and worthy only of contempt and ridicule.

    MrP


  • Options
    #150
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Quite clearly god or God will not appear beofre a court of law, not least because he is quite unlikely to exist. Therefore discussing his culpability for murder is more of an intellectual exercise. I would have thought you might have worked that out given I make no bones about my feeling towards the existence of gods.

    Intellectual exercise is assumed in this forum.


    I have be admit it is most convenient to believe that your god can do no wrong and that, as the creator he can take life with impunity and that will always be right. I suppose when what you really really want your god to be, IE the awesomely good christian god, is totally incompatible with what you see around you in the world, then assertions "like life is his to take back as he sees fit" or "that he can never do wrong" will be essential lest you realise that your beliefs are pathetic and worthy only of contempt and ridicule.

    MrP

    There isn't enough of even a nod to an intellectual exercise to do anything with here..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    recedite wrote: »
    suppose you are engaged in some righteous killing on God's behalf. Maybe slitting the throat of a boy like Isaac, or trying to cut off someone's head with a sword. And the person whose time is up, according to God, is struggling and pleading with you to let him go.
    Do you think you would feel any empathy towards them, any pangs of remorse for what you were doing?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I can't really speculate what I would feel like were I instructed by God to be the trigger puller in a persons death. But the extent of my empathy would be limited to the above. I wouldn't/couldn't feel there is any wrong being done. For the simple reason that there isn't a wrong being done.

    I think you are giving a dishonest answer now, either because you have never faced extreme cruelty close up, or you refuse to face the implication that you could experience a morality independent of your god's will.
    Or else you are a psychopath.


Advertisement