If God Commanded You To Kill Someone, Would You Do It?

[lynx]

If you’re a believer you would have to kill someone. If God dictates morality, and God told you to kill someone, then you either do it or become immoral in the eyes of God. If someone feels that God would never command anyone to do such an act, then you are stating that morality is beyond God, which makes God not all powerful. Seems like a simple choice to me.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have to say, I don’t buy this. I don’t think that modern Christian morality is so hard to learn that God had to build up to it. Most Christians are taught Christian morals and have learned them well even as small children, without “building up to it”. I have to be honest, from what I know of progressive revelation, it seems to me like a cheap way to explain why God changed his mind on morality. I could be wrong though.

I think this is apparent just by looking at history. Look at something like slavery. Slavery was built into human societies for millennia, yet it is only within the past 150 years that it has become generally regarded as an “evil”. It took society as a whole thousands of years to learn this. But this doesn’t mean that “slavery as evil” is a difficult concept to teach even small children.

Well, first of all, his excuse for why God could kill innocents (that they get to go to heaven, so it’s not big deal) I wold just like to restate is the the exact same logic used by Osama Bin Laden, as I said earlier:

Did you read the whole article? He’s not saying it’s “no big deal.” He’s just trying to put it into perspective. Did you read the explanation at the end which says that God may not have literally called for this at all but that it’s simply a literary device?

Anyways, I’m not arguing about whether God’s actions were moral (if divine command morality is true, than his actions obviously were moral). I’m just trying to drive home to those who believe in divine command morality the true implications of that belief (specifically, if God’s commands are the only determiner of morality, then they should be willing to carry out his commands without hesitation, no matter what that command was, murder, theft, wiping out a tribe and taking their virgins for yourselves, whatever.

V

But Catholics do not believe in “divine command morality.” Catholics believe in the natural moral law. Something isn’t moral or not simply because “God says so.”

 

[Call_Me_V]

I think this is apparent just by looking at history. Look at something like slavery. Slavery was built into human societies for millennia, yet it is only within the past 150 years that it has become generally regarded as an “evil”. It took society as a whole thousands of years to learn this. But this doesn’t mean that “slavery as evil” is a difficult concept to teach even small children.

I’m not saying that human conceptions of morality haven’t changed over time, I’m saying that, well, let’s use your slavery example. If slavery was wrong, I don’t buy into the idea that God sat there and said, “well, slavery is wrong, but I can’t tell them that yet because I have to work up to it”. I think that that is just a cheap excuse people use to explain why God didn’t tell people that slavery was wrong earlier. I don’t think that anyone really buys into the idea that God had to wait for cultural ideas to change. I don’t think that the Church even acts like that. To the best of my knowledge, the Church has never said to a new convert, “contraception is immoral… unless you grew up in a culture that was okay with contraception, in which case you can keep using contraception as you work your way towards true morality.” The Church expects converts to stop using contraception, without a several generation long “transition phase”.

I think that as ideas about morality have changed, ideas such as progressive revelation have been used to explain why God wasn’t ahead of the trend on slavery, women’s rights, etc. Now I’m not claiming that I can prove this, just that that’s all the progressive revelation seems to be an easy excuse as to why there are such immoral things in the Old Testament. Saying, “well, God had to tell them to murder infants, because they weren’t ready for this novel new idea that murdering infants was wrong, he had to work up to it.” just seems a weak excuse to me.

Did you read the whole article? He’s not saying it’s “no big deal.” He’s just trying to put it into perspective. Did you read the explanation at the end which says that God may not have literally called for this at all but that it’s simply a literary device?

Oh, I don’t think it actually historically happened either. I think the Old Testament is mostly mythology (the discovery of that was one of the early, key points in my deconversion). If you choose to believe that literally chapters, and chapters, and chapters are all “literary devices”, that’s fine. It doesn’t make sense to me, and I think the literary device defense is another weak and overused defense, but if you so choose, that’s fine. This thread is for people who believe that God literally did order such things, and who’s defense is “God ordered it, so it was okay”. They’re the ones that I’m speaking to with this thread.

But Catholics do not believe in “divine command morality.” Catholics believe in the natural moral law. Something isn’t moral or not simply because “God says so.”

A natural law written by God, so morality is still derived from God, so it seems to me to be equivalent to divine command morality. It seems to me your just adding another link to the chain of command. Your saying, “No, we don’t just do what God says, we do what the natural law that God wrote says!”. That seems to me to just be the exact same thing. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, in which case, please correct me.

Thanks,
V

 

[Langdell]

Are you implying that when the Old Testament says that God, gave the command, that that is not true? That God did not really act as the Old Testament portrays him? I would agree, but I’m just curious how it would affect the divine inspiration of the Old Testament if the Old Testament presented false information.

I think the Bible includes a good deal of distorted information. IMO (I think a lot of Catholics hold differing views on this), the Bible is inerrant only regarding matters of faith, morals, and salvation. Thus, for example, I believe that God had a covenant with the Israelites, and that He helped them reach Palestine and be successful there (for a time). But I don’t think He micro-managed the writing of the Bible in such a way that everything we are told God did or said is something He actually did or said. Events are attributed to Him that may have had nothing to do with Him and were instead the result of human free will.

.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I think the Bible includes a good deal of distorted information. IMO (I think a lot of Catholics hold differing views on this), the Bible is inerrant only regarding matters of faith, morals, and salvation. Thus, for example, I believe that God had a covenant with the Israelites, and that He helped them reach Palestine and be successful there (for a time). But I don’t think He micro-managed the writing of the Bible in such a way that everything we are told God did or said is something He actually did or said. Events are attributed to Him that may have had nothing to do with Him and were instead the result of human free will.

Hmmm, that seems a tad bit heretical to me, but I haven’t been keeping up on Church teaching lately. Can anyone else tell us, is it the Catholic Church’s position that only parts of scripture are divinely inspired (if that’s indeed what you’re saying, correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.) ?

V

 

[curlycool89]

Hmmm, that seems a tad bit heretical to me, but I haven’t been keeping up on Church teaching lately. Can anyone else tell us, is it the Catholic Church’s position that only parts of scripture are divinely inspired (if that’s indeed what you’re saying, correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.) ?

V

No, that part is true. For example, a lot of earlier books of the Old Testament record people living an unrealistic number of years (like several hundred). Obviously if you want to believe that you can, but I would say that they probably didn’t.

It’s also possible that the story of Noah’s Arc was inspired by the real life draining of Lake Agassiz in western Canada. Whether or not it is, the important part is the effect on salvation history, not the history itself.

 

[Call_Me_V]

No, that part is true. For example, a lot of earlier books of the Old Testament record people living an unrealistic number of years (like several hundred). Obviously if you want to believe that you can, but I would say that they probably didn’t.

It’s also possible that the story of Noah’s Arc was inspired by the real life draining of Lake Agassiz in western Canada. Whether or not it is, the important part is the effect on salvation history, not the history itself.

So the whole thing is divinely inspired… we just get to ignore all of the incorrect parts?

 

[curlycool89]

So the whole thing is divinely inspired… we just get to ignore all of the incorrect parts?

Many of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels were in the form of parables. The point is not the story, but what it teaches us.

Look at Genesis 1 and 2. Two very different stories of creation. Obviously, we can’t say that they are both fully true because they are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t mean we don’t learn something from each of them. The faith, morals, and salvation history are the important parts. An example of something that’s part of salvation history and more than likely also historically true is Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac (because that was common back then).

Although when it comes to the New Testament, things are more likely to be also historically correct, but not always (for example, it’s not a matter of faith whether Jesus spent exactly 40 days in the desert. The number 40 just seems to crop up a lot).

 

[choy]

in the old testament i believe mankind hasn’t received salvation yet through Jesus. so some people would be to into their ways that they are beyond redemption, and God would have them killed instead of letting them spread their sins and His people infected

but Jesus has made that unnecessary because he brought salvation for all

if i see someone posing as God in a dream asking me to kill someone, i will test the spirit. as St. Paul wrote that even the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light, how am i for certain that it is God who speaks to me? i have the teachings of Christ and if the commandment violates the teachings of Christ, then i know that i am being deceived

 

[Call_Me_V]

Many of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels were in the form of parables. The point is not the story, but what it teaches us.

Look at Genesis 1 and 2. Two very different stories of creation. Obviously, we can’t say that they are both fully true because they are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t mean we don’t learn something from each of them. The faith, morals, and salvation history are the important parts. An example of something that’s part of salvation history and more than likely also historically true is Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac (because that was common back then).

Although when it comes to the New Testament, things are more likely to be also historically correct, but not always (for example, it’s not a matter of faith whether Jesus spent exactly 40 days in the desert. The number 40 just seems to crop up a lot).

I don’t have actual arguments, (I can’t prove that it wasn’t meant to be taken metaphorically), I’m just saying that it seems to me like it’s a cheap excuse. The vast majority of people I talk to don’t sit there and analyze the genre of the book, look at the style that the author wrote in, and then try to determine which parts the author meant to be literal and which parts he meant to be metaphorical. Most of the simply play whack-a-mole, when they find out that part of the Bible is inaccurate, they simply say “Okay, so it’s a metaphor, problem solved”. Now, the Church may use better methods than that, I’m not sure, but when the vast majority of people that I talk to simply cry “metaphor” when part of the Bible is shown to be inaccurate, I really can’t take the metaphor thing that seriously, it always just ends up looking like a coverup.

V

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Oh, I haven’t checked lately. Did Hitler create the Heavens and the Earth from nothing? Did der Führer create man in his own image and breath his own breath into us and give us life? No, he decided he wanted to play God when he’s was just a man.

Oh and you have evidence for this? Though not.

Funny enough, there is no way to describe the beginning of the Universe without God. If you go back far enough, there had to be a point at which matter was created, which science says can’t be done. There has to be a beginning. Science can’t explain that.

Ah the good old god of the gaps.

Thirdly, Goodwin’s law. Please hand in you’re debate card on the way out.

God of the gaps and unfounded statements might cut it in your world, they don’t in mine.

 

[curlycool89]

Ah the good old god of the gaps.

Then tell me what you think. All modern physics (law of thermodynamics…) says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and that all entropy is constant. The universe had to have a start to it (that’s just logic), so what say you about that? You’ve just avoided the question and chosen a witty comeback because you don’t have an answer.

I don’t have actual arguments, (I can’t prove that it wasn’t meant to be taken metaphorically), I’m just saying that it seems to me like it’s a cheap excuse. The vast majority of people I talk to don’t sit there and analyze the genre of the book, look at the style that the author wrote in, and then try to determine which parts the author meant to be literal and which parts he meant to be metaphorical. Most of the simply play whack-a-mole, when they find out that part of the Bible is inaccurate, they simply say “Okay, so it’s a metaphor, problem solved”. Now, the Church may use better methods than that, I’m not sure, but when the vast majority of people that I talk to simply cry “metaphor” when part of the Bible is shown to be inaccurate, I really can’t take the metaphor thing that seriously, it always just ends up looking like a coverup.

V

2000 years of history + a lot of people who’ve spent their entire life studying this. Plus the Holy Spirt prevents the Church from teaching heresy or wrongly on faith and morals (you know what, I can never remember their names, but the Church almost had 2 Popes teach moral wrongs or heresies. Both times the Spirit protected the Church from teaching wrongly).

 

[Call_Me_V]

2000 years of history + a lot of people who’ve spent their entire life studying this.

A) Please direct me to their research where they outline the methods and logic that they use in determining which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical. B) As I said, the Church might have good methods, but the *vast *majority of people who claim something is a “metaphor” are not referencing Church teaching or the methods used by the Churche’s scholars, most ordinary people just seem to think, “That part of the Bible is inaccurate, therefore it’s a metaphor.” Which is why I usually can’t take the metaphor thing seriously from most people. Again, if you direct me toward the Church’s biblical scholars who say, for example, what methods and logic they used to determine that God commanding the Israelites to butcher the Midianite children was metaphorical, if you direct me towards scholars that don’t just write the story off as a metaphor because it’s inconvenient to them, I’ll be happy to take a look at it. My point is that the average layman uses the metaphor excuse far to frequently and without any real logic behind it.

Plus the Holy Spirt prevents the Church from teaching heresy or wrongly on faith and morals.

And you know I don’t believe that, anymore than you would believe that the Islamic clerics interpret scripture with the divine guidance of Allah.

V

 

[curlycool89]

A) Please direct me to their research where they outline the methods and logic that they use in determining which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical.

Unfortunately, I’m not a Bible scholar unfortunately (but that would be a pretty cool job). The Catechism of the Catholic Church does go into the different ways to interpret scripture a little bit (starting at #115). I haven’t had a chance to read through it yet, but there might be something to be found in Dei Verbum too.

B) As I said, the Church might have good methods, but the *vast *majority of people who claim something is a “metaphor” are not referencing Church teaching or the methods used by the Churche’s scholars, most ordinary people just seem to think, “That part of the Bible is inaccurate, therefore it’s a metaphor.” Which is why I usually can’t take the metaphor thing seriously from most people. Again, if you direct me toward the Church’s biblical scholars who say, for example, what methods and logic they used to determine that God commanding the Israelites to butcher the Midianite children was metaphorical, if you direct me towards scholars that don’t just write the story off as a metaphor because it’s inconvenient to them, I’ll be happy to take a look at it. My point is that the average layman uses the metaphor excuse far to frequently and without any real logic behind it.

Again, the Haydock commentary seems to be worth a read. No denial of it happening there.

Usually when I’m unsure, I look it up and see what the Church has said. Homilies are usually a great place to learn too. Usually my method of thinking is “treat it as literal unless I find out from someone authoritative that it isn’t”.

And you know I don’t believe that, anymore than you would believe that the Islamic clerics interpret scripture with the divine guidance of Allah.

V

I wasn’t aware that Islamic scholars claimed that. That would be a bit reduces though, because even within the same division and school of thought of Islam they come to different answers (I can’t remember any examples, but I do remember there are some). I don’t remember hearing that Mohammed gave anyone definite authority after he was gone either.

Christ gave authority to St. Peter, who was the first Pope.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Then tell me what you think. All modern physics (law of thermodynamics…) says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and that all entropy is constant. The universe had to have a start to it (that’s just logic), so what say you about that? You’ve just avoided the question and chosen a witty comeback because you don’t have an answer.

Actually as far as we know the laws of physics break down before the Planck time, again you simply have a god of the gaps argument. I have not avoided any question, i am simply pointing out to you that you have no answers and making up silly unfounded stories to fill that gaps isn’t really going to get us anyway.

Now do you actually have anything of substance that you would like to discuss, or are you going to reply with yet ANOTHER god of the gaps argument?

 

[curlycool89]

Actually as far as we know the laws of physics break down before the Planck time, again you simply have a god of the gaps argument. I have not avoided any question, i am simply pointing out to you that you have no answers and making up silly unfounded stories to fill that gaps isn’t really going to get us anyway.

No, you’re just avoiding it. Tell me about the start of the universe from a scientific perspective. Where did matter come from? All I want is the scientific answer. Can you give it to me or not?

 

[Hooding_Trees]

No, you’re just avoiding it. Tell me about the start of the universe from a scientific perspective. Where did matter come from? All I want is the scientific answer. Can you give it to me or not?

Your missing the point. The simple fact is the matter is we don’t know. Nobody does. The intellectually honest among us admit that fact, you on the other hand make up answers.

You don’t really think that when we don’t know something we should make up silly answers do you?

Your whole argument is we don’t know something therefore goddidit. That is called the god of the gaps argument and nobody with any degree of intellect takes it seriously.

 

[curlycool89]

Your missing the point. The simple fact is the matter is we don’t know. Nobody does. The intellectually honest among us admit that fact, you on the other hand make up answers.

You don’t really think that when we don’t know something we should make up silly answers do you?

Your whole argument is we don’t know something therefore goddidit. That is called the god of the gaps argument and nobody with any degree of intellect takes it seriously.

So you’re answer is you don’t know or can’t say. And yet when someone thinks up a plausible answer, you put you’re own prejudices ahead of actually considering it?

 

[Splinker]

In the OT Abraham was told to kill Isaac, but was stopped. Jesus not only took Isaac’s place, but all people’s so that we wouldn’t have to make a blood sacrifice.
Jesus paid the price for our sins… and He preached that we are to love and not lift up our hand against our enemies, but to pray for them, and lead to to Christ, which we do through the Gospel.
So no, if “God” is telling you to kill someone, I can assure you it is the devil, and I will pray for you.

Didn’t the fact that God’s angel stopped Abraham from committing the sacrifice put the kabosh on human sacrifice?

 

[Call_Me_V]

So you’re answer is you don’t know or can’t say. And yet when someone thinks up a plausible answer, you put you’re own prejudices ahead of actually considering it?

He’s saying that it’s not enough to have a plausible answer, you must give a reason why your specific answer is correct.

Look at the great undersea Bloop of 1997. To the best of our knowledge, no animal or man made object could have made the sound. Yet if I said that “God caused the undersea bloop”, most would laugh at me, and for good reason. Yes, God is a plausible answer, but most would want more than just a plausible answer, they would want me to give a reason why we should think that God was the answer.

Back to your example. Yes, God is a plausible explanation for where the Universe came from. So are magical fairies, so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so is the idea that the original singularity was formed as a result of a quantum fluctuation. They are all plausible, but, like the God hypothesis, none of them are well evidenced. Therefore, we should admit “We don’t know where the Universe came from, we’ll remain agnostic until we find out.”

Let me give one more example. Imagine you’re sitting on a jury, judging a murder trial, and there is absolutely no evidence pointing towards anyone. A lawyer points at a defendant and accuses him of the murder. You ask the lawyer what his evidence is, and he says that he has none, but points out that the defendant having committed the murder is perfectly plausible, and since no one else can come up with a better candidate, any refusal to prosecute the man is clearly a result of the jury’s own prejudices. Obviously this would be insane. If we have no evidence as to who committed the murder, we should simply accept that and not convict anyone.

So in conclusion, yes, the God hypothesis is one plausible way to explain the existence of the Universe, just like the man being accused in the court trial is one plausible candidate for being the murderer. But in both cases, I think we should agree that we should remain agnostic until someone presents actual evidence that it was God who created the Universe, or that this man actually committed the crime. Presenting a plausible scenario, but no actual evidence, and then saying that someone else is prejudiced for not accepting your claim seems silly to me. There’s a long way to go from “plausible” to “probable”.

In any case, this has horribly derailed the thread, and we should probably stop talking about it. How did we get on the topic of the existence of God anyways?

V