Killer

Wordleymaster1 · Post by **Wordleymaster1** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:39 am

If you're to believe the bible, God kills. God also creates.
If you're a Christian, you love and follow God (or are supposed to at least).
Why do you follow a god that kills?
Charlie Manson has his followers. And he has killed (in one way or another - guilty enough to get jail time). Are Christians to be considered like his followers?
Or do Christians overlook God's killing and accept if as justifiable? Well I guess the answer is YES, so maybe the question should be WHY

Why do Christians overlook God's killing (the worst murdere in human history it would seem)?
Is it the same reason why Charlie's followers overlook his past?

Or will Christians take offense at the comparison?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:21 pm

higgy1911 wrote: It's causing a persons body to stop functioning without their consent. It may be more than that. But even if it is it is still wrong to stop a persons body from functioning without their consent.

Death need not be permanent for murder to be murder.

So, you do not believe in manslaughter or even self defense?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:25 pm

[Replying to post 8 by dianaiad]

If you think the ending of life is simply "moving", then it is still kidnapping.

What if a man knows mortal life is not the end and he decides to... simply move people from one state of existence to another?

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:01 pm

higgy1911 wrote: I don't put much stock in the idea that killing is hunky dory because He knows there is eternal life. I think it's wrong to treat a mortal life like a plaything or a means to an end. Human life is valuable to me as it is in it's current form. It is not less valuable to me if I will live forever in an after life.

I think killing is an ugly thing. Especially unnecessary killing.
The first born of Egypt for example, that's just straight up murder. Why kill the children when you could have killed the guards or broken the chains or simply kill anyone who tried to stop the Jews from leaving. Doesn't matter if they all went to heaven afterward. That's as ugly a slaughter as I've ever heard of. Life is not his to take. Even if it is a gift from him it is not his to take. So murder is the same for God as it is for us. He's taking something that's no longer his.

The point is, He isn't taking life. He's simply moving it. YOU would be 'taking' it. I would be. He, knowing quite well that life continues, would not be.

As for kidnapping...say, what? Kidnapping from what to what? According to the story, we are eternal beings. That is, we will live forever. You know, never cease to exist? That is a very, very long time, and we are at the very beginning of it (or in the middle, depending upon one's beliefs regarding this stuff). Either way, this mortal existence is extremely short, compared to the lives that we will live after our mortal bodies stop functioning.

WE don't.

Again, we mere mortals don't have that absolute knowledge, nor do we have the authority to make such decisions lightly. We have to behave as if the end of life really is the end of life, period.

But God is not us. We cannot judge Him, should He exist, by the same standards at all. It isn't logical...any more than it would be logical to try a man for assault because he took a knife to the throat of a child....if the man is a surgeon and the child required the operation.

It's all about knowledge. It's all about the knowledge.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:06 pm

Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 8 by dianaiad]

If you think the ending of life is simply "moving", then it is still kidnapping.

What if a man knows mortal life is not the end and he decides to... simply move people from one state of existence to another?

No man can know this, can he? Even if one did, with the sort of absolute knowledge required, does he have the authority do mess with stuff?

God, supposedly, has both knowledge and authority.

Remember that 'knowledge,' in this case especially, means ABSOLUTE knowledge. More than trust that something is true, where the odds are 99.9999999% that it is true. Knowledge to the extent that there is absolutely NO chance that it might not be true. No hint of a bit of a statistical .00000000000000000000000000000000001% of a chance. Not even that much.

Absolute knowledge.

No man can have that this side of death, seems to me.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:25 pm

[Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

People can believe with certainty. People can believe without even recognising the existence of an alternative. That, to me, sounds a lot like 100%.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not an afterlife exists with regards to whether or not I want to stay in this one.
It seems to me that you're just trading murder for kidnapping.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:29 pm

Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

People can believe with certainty. People can believe without even recognising the existence of an alternative. That, to me, sounds a lot like 100%.

But it isn't, is it?

The point is, if God is, and everything that comes with Him also is...like an afterlife, absolute knowledge IS absolute knowledge. Not 'absolute trust,' or 'not recognizing the existence of an alternative," but knowing that there isn't one. Not recognizing doesn't mean that it's not there. Knowing it's not there is very different.

Jashwell wrote:It doesn't matter to me whether or not an afterlife exists with regards to whether or not I want to stay in this one.
It seems to me that you're just trading murder for kidnapping.

that's quite a trade. Kidnapping ain't murder.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:50 pm

dianaiad wrote:
Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

People can believe with certainty. People can believe without even recognising the existence of an alternative. That, to me, sounds a lot like 100%.
But it isn't, is it?

Isn't it? Not even realising an alternative could exist, not just that but never even considering it?

Why would someone have to have absolute knowledge anyway?
If I was extremely sick and you were almost certain stabbing me repeatedly in the chest would heal me instantly, sure, you'd be wrong but I don't think you'd be morally wrong - just missing important details.

The point is, if God is, and everything that comes with Him also is...like an afterlife, absolute knowledge IS absolute knowledge. Not 'absolute trust,' or 'not recognizing the existence of an alternative," but knowing that there isn't one. Not recognizing doesn't mean that it's not there. Knowing it's not there is very different.

Are you saying that how accurate someone's perception of reality is matters as to whether or not they are culpable or guilty?
If someone was delusional, but they still chose to save everyone and tried to make everyone as happy as possible... but in their delusional state ended up making everyone's lives worse, I wouldn't say they were morally wrong. I would say that they were factually wrong.

Jashwell wrote:It doesn't matter to me whether or not an afterlife exists with regards to whether or not I want to stay in this one.
It seems to me that you're just trading murder for kidnapping.
that's quite a trade. Kidnapping ain't murder.

Yeah, but when there's no such thing as death, murder is pretty hard.
God could always trade murder for kidnapping for public transport to and from this afterlife, or even just disclosure.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 10:08 pm

Jashwell wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

People can believe with certainty. People can believe without even recognising the existence of an alternative. That, to me, sounds a lot like 100%.
But it isn't, is it?
Isn't it? Not even realising an alternative could exist, not just that but never even considering it?

No, it's not.

For a very long time medical science went merrily on its way not recognizing, nor considering the possibility, of germs. Yet they existed.

For a very long time nobody recognized, nor considered, that there could be life on the bottom of the sea to which oxygen would be a poison, and which got its energy from 'smokers.' But they existed.

Human belief, or faith, in something can be extremely strong, and sometimes its even right...but that's not the same as absolute knowledge.

Here's another analogy I have often used.

Right now the sun is setting...just finishing up, actually. beautiful sunset. But do I KNOW that the sun is shining?

No. I only KNOW that it was shining eight minutes ago. Someday, some critter will look up into the sky believing that the sun is shining...and be utterly wrong. It will have exploded four minutes earlier.

Absolute knowledge is about what is, not what we believe...even if our belief is rock hard concrete and based on extremely good evidence.

Jashwell wrote:Why would someone have to have absolute knowledge anyway?
If I was extremely sick and you were almost certain stabbing me repeatedly in the chest would heal me instantly, sure, you'd be wrong but I don't think you'd be morally wrong - just missing important details.

When talking about whether God is committing murder, those details are important, indeed.

Jashwell wrote:
The point is, if God is, and everything that comes with Him also is...like an afterlife, absolute knowledge IS absolute knowledge. Not 'absolute trust,' or 'not recognizing the existence of an alternative," but knowing that there isn't one. Not recognizing doesn't mean that it's not there. Knowing it's not there is very different.
Are you saying that how accurate someone's perception of reality is matters as to whether or not they are culpable or guilty?

erm....yeah....but that's a bit of a side track, don't you think?

Now we are talking about responsibility, not fact, and it certainly doesn't help your argument.

Jashwell wrote:If someone was delusional, but they still chose to save everyone and tried to make everyone as happy as possible... but in their delusional state ended up making everyone's lives worse, I wouldn't say they were morally wrong. I would say that they were factually wrong.

OK....and your point is?

A Creator God would, of course, be factually NOT ending life, simply moving it.

That's what absolute knowledge means.

Whether people are responsible for their choices is a whole 'nuther topic.

Jashwell wrote:

Jashwell wrote:It doesn't matter to me whether or not an afterlife exists with regards to whether or not I want to stay in this one.
It seems to me that you're just trading murder for kidnapping.
that's quite a trade. Kidnapping ain't murder.
Yeah, but when there's no such thing as death, murder is pretty hard.
God could always trade murder for kidnapping for public transport to and from this afterlife, or even just disclosure.

Huh?

"No such thing as death?"

Define 'death' for me, please.

higgy1911 · Post by **higgy1911** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:24 am

I don't think I said human life is more valuable than everything else.

I said killing means to take it away without consent(and for purposes if this discussion I mean actively take it, not passively such as letting people starve when you have the means to prevent it).

I also said killing unnecessarily is wrong and ugly. I think their are plenty of things worth killing for and times when a person may have to. But when it's not the only option it tends to be immoral.

I'm sure many of Gods kills in the bible are justified by even my definitions. I'm primarily focused hear on killing all of egypts first born , many of whom were powerless to release the Jews and not responsible for their slavery.

Also the flood. No need to destroy all the animals and plants. Just send a plague to kill all the unrighteousness people. Needless killing really bothers me. Especially when committed by someone with nearly infinite options.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:00 pm

higgy1911 wrote: I don't think I said human life is more valuable than everything else.

I said killing means to take it away without consent(and for purposes if this discussion I mean actively take it, not passively such as letting people starve when you have the means to prevent it).

I also said killing unnecessarily is wrong and ugly. I think their are plenty of things worth killing for and times when a person may have to. But when it's not the only option it tends to be immoral.

I'm sure many of Gods kills in the bible are justified by even my definitions. I'm primarily focused hear on killing all of egypts first born , many of whom were powerless to release the Jews and not responsible for their slavery.

Also the flood. No need to destroy all the animals and plants. Just send a plague to kill all the unrighteousness people. Needless killing really bothers me. Especially when committed by someone with nearly infinite options.

I repeat...please define 'death' for me. I'm not certain that we are on the same page in this matter.

What happens, really, when we die? That is, what do YOU think is happening when you think of someone dying?