Thou shalt not kill?

Originally posted by bbarr
I never claimed I wanted equality with God, or even that we should get a vote in his laws. But, if he had wanted his laws to be legitimate, he could have decreed in a manner that would be consistent with what his lowly creatures would freely consent to if unbiased and rational (I'm assuming that you've read some political philosophy?). I do not care that God b ...[text shortened]... acks of tyranny. Tyranny isn't justified down here, and that doesn't change in the heavens.

It is this rationale that smacks of tyranny. Tyranny isn't justified down here, and that doesn't change in the heavens.

I believe orfeo's point is that God by His very nature is absolutely sovereign, and His right to 'tyranny', as you put it, is justified by Who He is. His laws, therefore, are legitimate regardless of the free consent of his creatures; since God is righteous, His laws are righteous. We can either submit to or rebel against Him; rebellion is inevitably futile since God Himself establishes what is right and what is wrong. And what He dictates is not arbitrarily chosen, but arises from Who He is (i.e. God Himself is the standard). One may say, then, since God commanded the slaughter of the whole city of Ai, that God's standard is evil; but this conclusion disregards what necessitated God's command in the first place. Those reponsible for the destruction of Ai were the inhabitants themselves, who knew "the truth about God because he [had] made it obvious to them . . . [and therefore knew] God’s justice requires that those who do these [wicked] things deserve to die, yet they [did] them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too" (Romans 1:18-35).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Well done! I couldn't have said it any better myself. Case closed.

🙄

Originally posted by SwissGambit
🙄

😀 EDIT: I know...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]It is this rationale that smacks of tyranny. Tyranny isn't justified down here, and that doesn't change in the heavens.

I believe orfeo's point is that God by His very nature is absolutely sovereign, and His right to 'tyranny', as you put it, is justified by Who He is. His laws, therefore, are legitimate regardless of the free consent of his c ...[text shortened]... [did] them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too" (Romans 1:18-35).[/b]

The inference from God's putative sovereignty to the legitimacy of his laws is circular, since the sovereign, by definition, has the right to legislate. Also, if God dictates what is right and wrong, then it is trivial that anything he does would be "right", even torturing children for fun (or genocide). You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since there are no independent moral constraints on what God could dictate. In short, you've given no reason to adopt this peculiar meta-ethical theory, and are using the term "moral" to refer to something completely different than what sane people mean by the term. You really should put an asterix next to your use of ethical terms, to indicate that you mean something completely different.

Originally posted by bbarr
The inference from God's putative sovereignty to the legitimacy of his laws is circular, since the sovereign, by definition, has the right to legislate. Also, if God dictates what is right and wrong, then it is trivial that anything he does would be "right", even torturing children for fun (or genocide). You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since t xt to your use of ethical terms, to indicate that you mean something completely different.

The inference from God's putative sovereignty to the legitimacy of his laws is circular, since the sovereign, by definition, has the right to legislate.

OK.

Also, if God dictates what is right and wrong, then it is trivial that anything he does would be "right", even torturing children for fun (or genocide).

Trivial, if God (as revealed biblically) wasn't immutably 'right' to begin with. He is the One Who gives righteousness its meaning.

You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since there are no independent moral constraints on what God could dictate.

Morality for men is conformity to rules of right conduct (God's rules). God Himself is not constrained by any independent set of rules; morality, as we know it, does not apply to Him. How could it be otherwise? Is there someone besides God Himself whom God should answer to? No. His standard is Himself.

I understand the problem which an unaccountable sovereign God poses; without trust in God, such absolute power in the hands of Another can cause one's butt to pucker up. Truthfully, that dilemma won't be resolved until you make a leap of faith in God's favor. In the meantime, one can only be His enemy and protest His sovereignty through various forms of righteous indignation. Submission and surrender are required.

In short, you've given no reason to adopt this peculiar meta-ethical theory, and are using the term "moral" to refer to something completely different than what sane people mean by the term. You really should put an asterisk next to your use of ethical terms, to indicate that you mean something completely different.

It's not a theory. It's God as revealed through the bible. (I don't recall using the ethical term 'moral'.)

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you seriously asking me why genocide is wrong?

Yes. Not because I particularly want to argue that it's right, but because I don't see that you should get away with describing something as self-evident any more than a believer in the literal truth of the Bible should get away with saying something is self-evident.

Originally posted by bbarr
The inference from God's putative sovereignty to the legitimacy of his laws is circular, since the sovereign, by definition, has the right to legislate. Also, if God dictates what is right and wrong, then it is trivial that anything he does would be "right", even torturing children for fun (or genocide). You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since t ...[text shortened]... xt to your use of ethical terms, to indicate that you mean something completely different.

Well, yes, the line of argument I was following is circular, I fully recognise that. And I'm perfectly happy to accept that the same line of argument leads to the rightness of God's actions being 'trivial'. Indeed, the point is that God is the external reference point for OUR actions.

And this entire argument only makes the slightest bit of sense if God is assumed to exist. And based on that assumption, you and others who don't like God's law are rebelling against them.

Well, that's your choice and good luck with that. Maybe it's a personality type thing, but I'm rather mystified by the idea that anyone who GENUINELY BELIEVED that God exists would be so keen on deliberately rebelling against him. Most of the time I find that your side of the argument is presented by people who don't actually believe that God exists, and therefore experience no discomfort in 'rebelling against him' because there won't be any consequences.

PS Whether or not God is a tyrant in the relevant sense says nothing about his personality, despite the negative connotations of the word. I would regard him as a benevolent tyrant - 'slow to anger and abounding in love'.

Originally posted by bbarr
The inference from God's putative sovereignty to the legitimacy of his laws is circular, since the sovereign, by definition, has the right to legislate. Also, if God dictates what is right and wrong, then it is trivial that anything he does would be "right", even torturing children for fun (or genocide). You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since t ...[text shortened]... xt to your use of ethical terms, to indicate that you mean something completely different.

You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since there are no independent moral constraints on what God could dictate.

arbitrary: 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

According to the inference of your thinking, there 'ought' to be some authority to which even God submits. Absurd. By His very nature, He is the ultimate authority, subject to nothing but His own character.

Because God's actions/decisions don't line up with your arbitrary standards for morality, your view has God as the bad (or at least irrelevant) one. Sounds curiously like the complaint of a certain fallen angel.

Originally posted by bbarr
The inference from God's putative sovereignty to the legitimacy of his laws is circular, since the sovereign, by definition, has the right to legislate. Also, if God dictates what is right and wrong, then it is trivial that anything he does would be "right", even torturing children for fun (or genocide). You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since t xt to your use of ethical terms, to indicate that you mean something completely different.

God's morality is sin equals death. Is this wrong? Is sin really that bad? From our biased and skewed view our response would probably be that yes we have sinned but nothing deserving of death or we might say that we have not sinned at all. It is comparible to the saying that everyone behind bars is innocent, or at least if you ask them.

Having said all of that, what then is a just and fair way to die if we do truly deserve death? Should genocide, as you say, be considered an unjust way to bring about ones death? God brought about such "genocide" during the flood of Noah and Sodom and Ghommora as well as the Canaanite conquests. However, God did this as a judgement against them because of their increasingly wicked ways. It was not done for amusement or fun as you allege. Since we all die because of sin it then stands to reason that the more we sin the closer to death we become. When we read about allegedly wicked civilizations such as Ai I don't think we truly grasp to what levels of wickedness they had fallen to. Take, for example, the men of Sodom. Were they wicked simply for being gay? If you read the story the men of Sodom followed the stangers visiting Lot to his house and then demanded the stangers come out so they could gang rape them and probably leave them for dead. Take, for example, the men during the time of Noah. It was said that their minds were continually fixed upon wickedness. As for the men of Ai it is known that idol worship in the land of Canaan involved child sacrifice in many cases. It seems as though as the level of wickedness increases so does the severity through which God judges such wickedness. To say that God hands out such judgment for fun would be to say that God wanted these people to sin in the first place which would require that God be unholy. If God's holiness dictates that sin is repugnant to him in every way how then could he hope that we sin so that he could have an excuse to harm us for fun?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You are making of morality an arbitrary thing, since there are no independent moral constraints on what God could dictate.

arbitrary: 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

According to the inference of your thinking, there 'ought' to be some authority to which even God submits. r at least irrelevant) one. Sounds curiously like the complaint of a certain fallen angel.[/b]

According to christians, god gave Moses the ten commandments, which include "You shall not kill." It is not an independent constraint, but one of his own making. We would then expect god to abide by his own commandments by not killing. For him to kill in spite of his own condemnation of the act is hypocritical. How can we be expected to abide by his commandments when he can't be bothered to follow them himself? If god is subject only to his own character, then we clearly see that character to be one of a hypocritical killer.

So it's not that god's actions/decisions don't line up with our "arbitrary" standards of morality, but because they don't line up with HIS OWN standards of morality.

Originally posted by rwingett
According to christians, god gave Moses the ten commandments, which include "You shall not kill." It is not an independent constraint, but one of his own making. We would then expect god to abide by his own commandments by not killing. For him to kill in spite of his own condemnation of the act is hypocritical. How can we be expected to abide by his command ...[text shortened]... andards of morality, but because they don't line up with HIS OWN standards of morality.

God never stipulated that He shall not kill. The ten commandments were handed down to men. In fact, according God's law, God has the right to destroy us: "The Lord God warned him (Adam), “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden—except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die" (Genesis 2:16). "The anger of God will fall on all who disobey him" (Ephesians 5:5-6).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
God never stipulated that He shall not kill. The ten commandments were handed down to men. In fact, according God's law, God has the right to destroy us: "The Lord God warned him (Adam), “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden—except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to ...[text shortened]... ie" (Genesis 2:16). "The anger of God will fall on all who disobey him" (Ephesians 5:5-6).

So god is immoral, but has a right to be so? Is that it?

Originally posted by rwingett
So god is immoral, but has a right to be so? Is that it?

The bottom line is, only God has the right to kill because only God is justified in doing so. The only reason you see killing to be immoral is because God legislated that way. God is sovereign and has the right to legislate for His creatures (after all, He created us). None of his creatures have the right to kill because "the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires" (James 1:20). Why not? Because God is holy and we are not. Therefore, for men, anger towards and the killing of others is sin; for God, anger towards and the killing of His creatures is a holy act.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The bottom line is, only God has the right to kill because only God is justified in doing so. The only reason you see killing to be immoral is because God legislated that way. God is sovereign and has the right to legislate for His creatures (after all, He created us). None of his creatures have the right to kill because "the anger of man does not pro ...[text shortened]... lling of others is sin; for God, anger towards and the killing of His creatures is a holy act.

So being "holy" means having a license to kill? So the only difference between Hitler and your god, is that god is "holy", while Hitler was not. They each engage in mass murder, but on the one hand it's a "holy" act, and on the other it's genocide. Or actually it's genocide on both counts, but as we know from religious apologists, we can't condemn genocide out of hand, because, in fact, it is a perfectly acceptable moral tactic from time to time.

If god commanded you to fly a jet into a tall skyscraper, would that be a "holy" act? If god personally granted you your own temporary holy license to kill, would you be justified in following those orders?

Originally posted by rwingett
So being "holy" means having a license to kill? So the only difference between Hitler and your god, is that god is "holy", while Hitler was not. They each engage in mass murder, but on the one hand it's a "holy" act, and on the other it's genocide. Or actually it's genocide on both counts, but as we know from religious apologists, we can't condemn genocide ...[text shortened]... wn temporary holy license to kill, would you be justified in following those orders?

So being "holy" means having a license to kill? So the only difference between Hitler and your god, is that god is "holy", while Hitler was not.

The only difference??? You have no recognition of and therefore no appreciation of God's holiness, otherwise you'd be able to see how big a difference that really is... And that is precisely the reason why you're having such trouble with this issue.

I hope you don't feel it is my job to defend the Lord, because it's not.