Originally posted by galveston75Forgive me for raising what seems to me a moral conundrum. The question "Does God have a right to kill?" implies a moral distance from and superiority to God, as if theists could sit in judgement on the creator and pronounce sentence on whether He has the right or not to kill. This seems not only arrogant, but possibly heretical. Not believing in God I am appalled at the gung-ho approach to genocide, filicide, infanticide et al that he appears to indulge in in the Old Testament from the mass extermination of the flood (all those innocent animals) onwards.
This subject comes up from time to time with many comments about God taking life in the past of seemingly innocent ones.
I know some here express anger and even hatred to a God that would do this.
Any thoughts as to why he did this and could still possibly do it again?
Originally posted by galveston75I believe the 10 commandments best translation is murder not kill, saying
Originally in the ten commandments. Then yes his son Jesus reaffirmed that law a couple different times.
Now yes many of God's people did kill as in protecting the nation of Israel that has been discussed here. But was that command given by a government, ruler, king, president or the leader of an army? No it was a direct command from God.
Up to this ...[text shortened]... ot a part of this world and his followers to remain neutral with the worlds affairs such as war.
that I respect your views about killing. I'm a firm believer in if it goes
against your conscious you should not do it, so even if we agree to disagree
on that translation I respect your views on the topic.
Since afterwards there was a lot of fighting taking place at the direction of
God I’d say murder fits in the 10 commandments better. Again, even if
I’m right, your conscious is enough for me to say if you were to fight it
would be a sin for you, so do not take my disagreement with you as a shot
against your beliefs, NOT my intent.
Kelly
Originally posted by Pianoman1Then perhaps you should be appalled at your own unrighteous judgment.
Forgive me for raising what seems to me a moral conundrum. The question "Does God have a right to kill?" implies a moral distance from and superiority to God, as if theists could sit in judgement on the creator and pronounce sentence on whether He has the right or not to kill. This seems not only arrogant, but possibly heretical. Not believing in God I am ...[text shortened]... the Old Testament from the mass extermination of the flood (all those innocent animals) onwards.
The Instructor
Originally posted by Pianoman1I have to agree with you, God setup the universe from beginning to end it
Forgive me for raising what seems to me a moral conundrum. The question "Does God have a right to kill?" implies a moral distance from and superiority to God, as if theists could sit in judgement on the creator and pronounce sentence on whether He has the right or not to kill. This seems not only arrogant, but possibly heretical. Not believing in God I am ...[text shortened]... the Old Testament from the mass extermination of the flood (all those innocent animals) onwards.
will be God's. Who are we to remotely sit in judgment of the Creator and
sustainer of all things?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDid you read this last sentence?
RJ, I read these comments by Pianoman1 as searching questions (delivered with brutal candor, honesty and without guile).
[b]"Not believing in God I am appalled at the gung-ho approach to genocide, filicide, infanticide et al that he appears to indulge in in the Old Testament from the mass extermination of the flood (all those innocent animals) onwards." [b]
This seems like a judgment of God to me.
Do you think I misunderstood this? If so, can you explain what he meant? What is your answer to him?
The Instructor
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If you want to claim that God's actions must be right just in virtue of God's character being definitive of what is right; then okay, but I have no idea why anyone would find that satisfactory.
What do you want to define further: the nature of right or the nature of God?
And, unfortunately, in the case of God's sanctioning genocide and whatno ...[text shortened]... complete and utter destruction of a group of people large enough to be considered an ethnicity.
create a scenario in which the best of all possible outcomes is the complete and utter destruction of a group of people large enough to be considered an ethnicity.
After some thought I can conceive of no such scenario. If you have ideas on it, then offer them up, and I'll let you know if I agree or not. I doubt there is such a scenario; and even if there were, I'm sure it would not translate to the scenarios of God-sanctioned genocide described in your divine accounts.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen someone asks you for directions to a destination at a rest stop on the interstate or wants to understand aspects of a topic in an online public forum, making assumptions concerning the individual's reasons and/or motives is inappropriate. Why? Because reasons and/or motives are a private matter. Accurate information courteously presented meets the need.
Did you read this last sentence?
[b]"Not believing in God I am appalled at the gung-ho approach to genocide, filicide, infanticide et al that he appears to indulge in in the Old Testament from the mass extermination of the flood (all those innocent animals) onwards." [b]
This seems like a judgment of God to me.
Do you think I misunderstood this? If so, can you explain what he meant? What is your answer to him?
The Instructor
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou are good at demonstrating how to not answer questions. Perhaps you would make a good politician.
When someone asks you for directions to a destination at a rest stop on the interstate or wants to understand aspects of a topic in an online public forum, making assumptions concerning the individual's reasons and/or motives is inappropriate. Why? Because reasons and/or motives are a private matter. Accurate information courteously presented meets the need.
The Instructor