foolish question

[fool]

I guess you've really got to dig deep to contrive some foolishness on which to base your incorrect beliefs.

It's not contrived foolishness.
It's a question of basic morality.

 

[fool]

I'll stab at an answer: If God asked me to do something like that, and I was certain it was God (if it really was God, there would be zero doubt) then I can only hope I would have the obedience to carry out his orders. Honestly, confronted with such a grisly task, I might fold in the face of the command and rebel, even though it would be a sin. But I hope I would have the strength to obey - I guess I can't be certain exactly how I would react unless I was truly faced with that situation.

Let God be true and every man a liar!

So you don't really trust God?

 

[Delmar]

Hi fool. I've followed your debate with Bob with great interest! I think you made a lot of good points. I'll comment on them after I've answered your question.

If I was completely sure that the God of the universe was telling me to slaughter infants then I would slaughter infants. It sounds savage, I know. It is savage. Today I would be labelled a psychopathic killer and probably sentenced to death. I would be spit on by the church itself for thinking that God was telling me to kill babies. What I find particularly hypocritical is that the scorn and disdain with which Christians look at muslims for doing the very same thing. Radical muslims and suicide bombers think they are doing God's will in the same way Joshua was sure he was doing God's will. They are both equally convinced of their rightness and justness. All this to say that I think if you were absolutely convinced the God of this universe was telling you the same thing, your reaction would be no different than Joshua's, Osama's, or mine.

Just to comment on your discussion quickly (I need to go to bed), I think you did handled yourself well. I think you could have agreed that it is justifiable for God to kill willing believers without sacrificing your position at all. I was waiting for you to say "yea, so what?" There is a large logical gap that Bob would have to jump to go from willing believers to unwilling unbelievers and babies.

I also thought you should have played up the free-will aspect of this more than you did. Free will is the holy grail for open theists. If God kills an unbeliever against their will then by definition he has violated their free will. I thought open theists rewrote the Bible so as to avoid violating free will.

To obey such a command I would certainly have to be very convinced that I was, in fact, hearing the voice of the living God. It is also quite true that if I actually heard the voice of God tell me to go kill every man woman and child in a particular place, I would have to consider the possibility that I had gone quite mad.

 

[fool]

See, God doesn't ask people to sin - just the opposite! Jesus told us to pray: "Lead us not into temptation".

God's reasons for doing things or commanding us to do things may seem unreasonable to us, but he is infallible and he always has a just reason for everything he does and every command he issues. We can't see the big picture and God is under no obligation to explain his every decision to us. That's where faith comes in.

Now Fool - I say, don't let a misunderstanding like that come between you having a relationship with the Living God. It's not a good enough reason to miss the best gift you could ever receive. It's not a good idea to point out the seeming "fallacies" of the Bible, while ignoring the fact that you are a sinner desperately in need of salvation. It's like, you're drowing and your arguing with the guy in the lifeboat about what color swimming trunks he's wearing!

Uh, No, Butchering infants is much different than swim trunk selection.

 

[fool]

Hi fool. I've followed your debate with Bob with great interest! I think you made a lot of good points. I'll comment on them after I've answered your question.

If I was completely sure that the God of the universe was telling me to slaughter infants then I would slaughter infants. It sounds savage, I know. It is savage. Today I would be labelled a psychopathic killer and probably sentenced to death. I would be spit on by the church itself for thinking that God was telling me to kill babies. What I find particularly hypocritical is that the scorn and disdain with which Christians look at muslims for doing the very same thing. Radical muslims and suicide bombers think they are doing God's will in the same way Joshua was sure he was doing God's will. They are both equally convinced of their rightness and justness. All this to say that I think if you were absolutely convinced the God of this universe was telling you the same thing, your reaction would be no different than Joshua's, Osama's, or mine.

Just to comment on your discussion quickly (I need to go to bed), I think you did handled yourself well. I think you could have agreed that it is justifiable for God to kill willing believers without sacrificing your position at all. I was waiting for you to say "yea, so what?" There is a large logical gap that Bob would have to jump to go from willing believers to unwilling unbelievers and babies.

I also thought you should have played up the free-will aspect of this more than you did. Free will is the holy grail for open theists. If God kills an unbeliever against their will then by definition he has violated their free will. I thought open theists rewrote the Bible so as to avoid violating free will.

Great response, I think the hang up I have is even if I did believe I would not be able to physically carry out the act.

 

[fool]

This is a very foolish question.

If you look at the history of war, you will find that killing every man, woman, and child of a town is a normal occurance. That is why they say war is hell. People have mixed reactions to killing children in war, but it is done all the time. This is not much different than being one of the men who had to drop an atomic bomb on Nagasaki after seeing what atomic bombs did to Hiroshima. The only difference is that in war we now kill at long range so we cannot see the blood.

We adressed that early on. We're talking about swords here cause there one-thrust-one-kill. The bomb kills everyone, but with a sword you have more chances to discriminate.

Here is another question:
If you were an athiest, and someone told you that you had to kill an infant to keep it from messing up your life, would you pay for the abortion and have it done?

No, an infant can't mess up my life.
Babies are fun and they smell good.

 

[Balder]

What would please God more, do you think?

If you obey him unquestioningly and carry out the atrocity (described in Fool's scenario)?

If you hesitate because of the nature of the act, but then do it because of who is asking?

If you refuse and say you will not carry out such an act?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm as devoted to my God as the Muslims are to theirs, and so I'm sure I'd have no problems killing at God's request just as they do today.

But, Fool, you have to admit, you are in the minority when it comes to a prohibition on killing kids. Most atheists support baby-killers openly. If I recall, you don't support abortion, but will you admit that most atheists do?

 

[GuySmiley]

Its interresting (as a side note) to think that at the time of Joshua's army, the Holy Spirit did not live inside people and words from God came through prophets, not to each person individually. The soldier would only recieve his orders from Joshua that this is what God commanded.

If I were a soldier in that army I have no doubt that I'd carry out those orders. Anyone in an army in those times wouldn't see the moral dilema, it was common practice everywhere in the world. If the women and children were spared it would be the uncommon practice. But this is hypothetical, and you are looking at it as if you, your modern self, was there.

Also, why all the inflamitory language. You act as if God ordered the babies to be cut up into tiny pieces, starting with the toes to maximize the pain. You use the words slaughter and butcher to make your point seem better. Not that it changes the subject much.

Your OP is in the context of a soldier in Joshua's army. Whenever someone admits they would follow the orders, you drop that context and say they want to hack up babies. Its not quite the same thing. If I thought God was telling me to pick a hospital nursery at random and go chop up all the babies, I'd go see a counsellor, not carry out the order.

 

[Shalom]

Its interresting (as a side note) to think that at the time of Joshua's army, the Holy Spirit did not live inside people and words from God came through prophets, not to each person individually. The soldier would only recieve his orders from Joshua that this is what God commanded.

This is a very important detail. That is whay I was saying that we have to consider the dispensation. Excellent point Guy!

If I were a soldier in that army I have no doubt that I'd carry out those orders. Anyone in an army in those times wouldn't see the moral dilema, it was common practice everywhere in the world. If the women and children were spared it would be the uncommon practice. But this is hypothetical, and you are looking at it as if you, your modern self, was there.

I agree :thumb:

Also, why all the inflamitory language. You act as if God ordered the babies to be cut up into tiny pieces, starting with the toes to maximize the pain. You use the words slaughter and butcher to make your point seem better. Not that it changes the subject much.

Because they are trying to present the weak point with strong language.

Your OP is in the context of a soldier in Joshua's army. Whenever someone admits they would follow the orders, you drop that context and say they want to hack up babies. Its not quite the same thing. If I thought God was telling me to pick a hospital nursery at random and go chop up all the babies, I'd go see a counsellor, not carry out the order.

Exactly!! Lets think logically here folks.

Excellent post Guy. By the far the best in the thread yet.
I owe you some rep when the rep gods allow it in 24hrs :chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well the 4 part radio debate has come to an abrupt end and now I'll put the question to the general public.
Here's the story;
You're a soldier in Joshua's army, you got order's to smote everyone in town A, you've killed all the men, and the women, and now it's time to butcher the infants.
Don't be shy!
Step right up and tell me what you'd do.

Drastic times take drastic measures.

I would have had no problem dropping an atomic bomb on Afghanistan the day after 9-11. Would you?

Likewise if the God of the universe told me to completely wipe out a village because that culture was a threat to the free world I would have no problem doing what is necessary.

God rarely had entire villages wiped out, therefore this case must have been a very special one.

 

[koban]

I'm as devoted to my God as the Muslims are to theirs, and so I'm sure I'd have no problems killing at God's request just as they do today.

Would you worship a God that requested that you kill innocents?

How could you distinguish between a clever deceiver and the true repository of divine justice in such a case? What could God say to convince you that such a request had not come from Satan?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Who is Koban?

 

[allsmiles]

i'm not going to answer these questions, but ask another...

why didn't the god of the Old Testament simply reveal himself to the prophets or priests or lay people of Jericho? or for that matter, the people of every other city and kingdom that the Hebrew's wiped out at his behest? why not reveal his glory to them and in a non-violent way take them over without having to shed a drop of blood?

was this beyond your god's capability? is the "power" of human denial stronger than your god's ability to reveal his splendor? we are talking about an era in "history" where your god had no problem revealing himself and making his power known.

 

[koban]

Drastic times take drastic measures.

I would have had no problem dropping an atomic bomb on Afghanistan the day after 9-11. Would you?

Yep

Likewise if the God of the universe told me to completely wipe out a village because that culture was a threat to the free world I would have no problem doing what is necessary.

I dunno, I think I'd tell him to do it himself.

God rarely had entire villages wiped out, therefore this case must have been a very special one.

:think: Well, there was that one time it rained a lot. :chuckle:

 

[koban]

Who is Koban?

What's a Knight???

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i'm not going to answer these questions, but ask another...

why didn't the god of the Old Testament simply reveal himself to the prophets or priests or lay people of Jericho? or for that matter, the people of every other city and kingdom that the Hebrew's wiped out at his behest? why not reveal his glory to them and in a non-violent way take them over without having to shed a drop of blood?

was this beyond your god's capability? is the "power" of human denial stronger than your god's ability to reveal his splendor? we are talking about an era in "history" where your god had no problem revealing himself and making his power known.

God reveals Himself to all humans.

The more pronounced His revelation, the more the truth is shoved in peoples faces. Therefore God walks a fine line between revealing Himself and allowing man to make his own eternal decision without coercion.

People reject God even more when God shows His power with full force, take Pharaoh for instance... the more God showed His power the more Pharaoh fought to reject submitting himself to that power.

Foolish pride is a terrible thing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yep

Yep what?

I dunno, I think I'd tell him to do it himself.

That is an option.

:think: Well, there was that one time it rained a lot. :chuckle:

Yes... God has had to do many drastic things during the course of history.

Mankind has also had to take drastic steps at times (just ask Japan).

 

[allsmiles]

God reveals Himself to all humans.

The more pronounced His revelation, the more the truth is shoved in peoples faces. Therefore God walks a fine line between revealing Himself and allowing man to make his own eternal decision without coercion.

okay, i understand... you use Pharaoh below as an example, but do you have a more modern example of your god revealing himself to humans and having them reject him?

People reject God even more when God shows His power with full force, take Pharaoh for instance... the more God showed His power the more Pharaoh fought to reject submitting himself to that power.

Foolish pride is a terrible thing.

and i would expect the bible to reflect this idea, but i'm not convinced of how realistic it is.

do you have a modern example of God directly revealing himself to his enemies only to have them reject his very real presence and power?

 

[koban]

Yep what?

You asked "I would have had no problem dropping an atomic bomb on Afghanistan the day after 9-11. Would you?"

I replied in the affirmative.

Yes. I would have a problem dropping an atomic bomb on Afghanistan the day after 9-11.

That is an option.

If one is getting otherwordly requests that don't fit your moral beliefs or views of God, it would probably be the safest course of action.

Yes... God has had to do many drastic things during the course of history.

Yep!

Mankind has also had to take drastic steps at times (just ask Japan).

But mankind doesn't have the divine power to selectively choose who to avoid killing during a war, does it?