If God spoke to you and said...

I would start with the person I knew the best: me.

you know i've been going through this thread...and i gotta give mad props to Spinks for inserting a frigin Dodgeball metaphor in here :biglaugh:

By the same token, if God offers undeniable proof, he wouldn't be asking for mass murder, because God wouldn't ask for that. Conversely, if this voice asked for mass murder, any proof it provides is deniable. The only way both of these could be true is if it's some kind of test, like Abraham and Isaac, in which case He wouldn't be asking me, because I can't take that kind of test, and God has said he won't test us beyond what we can bear.

Click to expand...

The morality outlined in the Bible is potentially incomplete, prone to change and not based on reason (since it is authority based). This gives far more room to maneouver than the irresistable force/immovable object scenario.

This is because you cannot know that the whole of absolute morality has been revealed to you, you cannot know that morality does not change (as it does occasionally in the Bible) and since you do not know the foundations of this morality, you cannot even test whether it is possible to extend or shorten the set of rules.

Besides you can only really go down two roots when it comes to absolute morality. Either God decides it or the universe is just built that way. The latter denies God's omnipotence as does your suggestion that God is unable to tell you to murder somebody. How is omnipotence limitable? And if it isn't, how can you decide what God wouldn't, shouldn't or couldn't do.

By the same token, if God offers undeniable proof, he wouldn't be asking for mass murder, because God wouldn't ask for that. Conversely, if this voice asked for mass murder, any proof it provides is deniable. The only way both of these could be true is if it's some kind of test, like Abraham and Isaac, in which case He wouldn't be asking me, because I can't take that kind of test, and God has said he won't test us beyond what we can bear.

Click to expand...

But the above is not like your previous example because this

By the same token, if God offers undeniable proof, he wouldn't be asking for mass murder, because God wouldn't ask for that.

Click to expand...

is complete assumption on your part. Others may disagree on this point, not to mention the assumption could be completely wrong and god would ask this, you just don't know it. So god asking for mass murder does not negate undeniable evidence provided by this god of his existance.

orichalcum said:

I hate to yell "stupid poster" , but the rest is obvious, isn't it?
How can you know what God would and would not do? Are you God?
Then how can you assume that God would not?

Click to expand...

Because if God would do such a thing, God would be doing something evil, and that would be a contradiction, becasue God cannot commit an act which He has named evil. That is the way Christianity should see it, and if you want, go ahead and call Christianity a stupid religion for daring to believe what God has revealed.

Fluffy said:

Besides you can only really go down two roots when it comes to absolute morality. Either God decides it or the universe is just built that way.

Click to expand...

Or God and the universe are not separate from each other.

Fluffy said:

The latter denies God's omnipotence as does your suggestion that God is unable to tell you to murder somebody. How is omnipotence limitable? And if it isn't, how can you decide what God wouldn't, shouldn't or couldn't do.

Click to expand...

Whatever infinite potential God may have, it must be actualized in a finite way - in this universe - for us to conceive of it. (If it remains unactualized, we do not exist to have this discussion. And if it is actualized in other ways in other universes, we are unware of it.) Even we finite humans, while we do not have infinite potential, we do have many more potential actions available to us than what we choose to act on. Existence is about choice, limiting potential in order to actualize a reality.

The laws of the universe could be different from what they are; but they are what they are. That they are not something else does not mean that God is not "omnipotent"; it means that God chooses to actualize this universe here and now. To say that God would not tell us to kill everyone we know is not to put a limitation on God's potential; it is a recognition of what God is. It is a recognition of what we, as agents of God, not separate from God, choose to bring into being.

Whatever infinite potential God may have, it must be actualized in a finite way - in this universe - for us to conceive of it. (If it remains unactualized, we do not exist to have this discussion. And if it is actualized in other ways in other universes, we are unware of it.) Even we finite humans, while we do not have infinite potential, we do have many more potential actions available to us than what we choose to act on. Existence is about choice, limiting potential in order to actualize a reality.

The laws of the universe could be different from what they are; but they are what they are. That they are not something else does not mean that God is not "omnipotent"; it means that God chooses to actualize this universe here and now. To say that God would not tell us to kill everyone we know is not to put a limitation on God's potential; it is a recognition of what God is. It is a recognition of what we, as agents of God, not separate from God, choose to bring into being.

Click to expand...

Agreed but if God is omnipotent then he is fully able to change what is right and wrong at a whim. If you define what is right and wrong as what God tells you, then if God changes his mind, would you change yours? This scenario is not having God ask you to do an immoral action. It is suggesting that God changes the laws of morality so that the immoral becomes moral.

So it is now irrelevant whether such a thing is likely or whether God is likely do such a thing. Such a prerequisite is already stated and so is a certainty within the realms of the argument.

An example of this is when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham fully realised that God decreed what was right and wrong. If God wished to make such an act right, then Abraham would have to follow it in order to do the right thing. To do otherwise would be to break a moral absolute of God's creation.

I would say "Oh $#*( I wasn't expecting you!, then convince myself I was seeing things and see a doctor, of course I wouldn't listen!

Melody said:

Do I act morally and ethically because of Christ's teachings or just because it coincides with my own moral values? I would have to say because they must be obeyed since some (i.e. forgiveness of some really sick psychos) are not found in my own sense of morality. I have to continually fight the urge to wish them in the hottest hell.

Click to expand...

So if Christ's teachings said you should murder everyone you know, would you obey?

To answer this question I would say... yes.If God told me to kill, I would.

I would expect these are the last times, and God would grant me the request of the miracles spoken of in Revelation. I would also expect that I am one of the 2 witnesses that came to pronounce such destruction on earth.

Speaking of ways to prove that it is God speaking... He would need to have presented the signs that it was the end time, the signs that he is God, the signs that I was one of his chosen instruments, and all that is spoken of to be fulfilled before hand must be fulfilled. God says they will perform great miracles, so that shows me that they probably wouldn't be told to use grenades or guns, steal tanks or warheads, strangle or otherwise use brute force to do the killing. If these were presented then I say... YES LORD, YOUR WILL BE DONE!

I can't believe what I'm hearing...well not so much hearing more seeing.

Fluffy said:

Agreed but if God is omnipotent then he is fully able to change what is right and wrong at a whim. If you define what is right and wrong as what God tells you, then if God changes his mind, would you change yours? This scenario is not having God ask you to do an immoral action. It is suggesting that God changes the laws of morality so that the immoral becomes moral.

So it is now irrelevant whether such a thing is likely or whether God is likely do such a thing. Such a prerequisite is already stated and so is a certainty within the realms of the argument.

Click to expand...

This still presupposes God as an external entity, imposing His will on us. In my view, my conscience is a manifestation of God's will. The reason why I have an idea of right and wrong in the first place is because of God. Therefore God "cannot" tell me to do what I know is wrong. It's not a limitation on God's ability; it's a recognition that God is the basis of morality. Again, not that God defines or decrees what morality should be, but that God is morality. That is what theists (at least those of the Abrahamic persuassion) mean by "God is good." Not meaning that God is good because God always does what is good. God is good, the very basis of good. Yes, I know I'm repeating myself but no one seems to be hearing me. You don't have to agree - you can say that god is beyond good and evil or that there is no god or whatever, but please understand what I am saying. God is good means that God is goodness itself, not just that God decides what's to be considered good.

Fluffy said:

An example of this is when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham fully realised that God decreed what was right and wrong. If God wished to make such an act right, then Abraham would have to follow it in order to do the right thing. To do otherwise would be to break a moral absolute of God's creation.

Click to expand...

First of all, it's a story. Secondly, nowhere does it say that Abraham recognized that what God decreed was "right." Those judgements have been read into the story by the reader, after the fact.

The story is not about morality; it is about faith. What would be the ultimate test of faith? The ultimate test of faith is to ask a person to do something that is harmful to oneself, harmful to another person, and harmful to one's reputation - something for which society will condemn you. Many people would be willing to harm themselves for their faith - history's many martyrs will attest to that. Some people would be willing to harm someone they love for their faith - as when King Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter for the sake of his people (Troy). A few would be willing to destroy their own reputation, tho I think this is probably the hardest test of all. Abraham was asked to do all three things - to give up what was most precious to him, his son, to kill another human being, and to do so in such a way that everyone would have condemned him, including his wife. He did not even have the consolation that Agamennon had that his people would perceive his sacrifice as heroic. Instead, had he gone thru with it, he would have been perceived as a monster.

It isn't the case that because God asked Abraham to kill Isaac that means that killing Isaac was right or moral. It is the case that God tested Abraham by asking him to do what was immoral. The story is meant to be disturbing. That's the point. And Abraham showed that his was a faith that was stronger than any of us can sanely imagine. Thus, the story establishes Abraham's credentials to be the father of a nation founded on faith. But it is, in the end, a story. Just as we don't ask whether bears really live in cottages and eat porridge outside of Goldilocks, I would not read the story of Abraham and Isaac and say God must want us to kill our children, not even some of the time. We are not Abraham.

John 6:60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

If it is from God and is a hard teaching shall I leave? To whom shall I go? Since I believe and know that he is the Holy One of God... shall I not obey?

Partially out of context, I know, but I hope I made my point.


Also, lilithu:
A. Abraham's story is told as if it happened and thus should not be put into a catagory with bears living in cottages.
B. In those days it would not have been destruction to one's own reputation because it has been common to sacrifice your own children to gods and not be condemned. We are talking thousands of years ago.
C. The story is not about belief that Abraham has such an unreachable amount of faith.
D. Abraham knew that Isaac was to recieve the inheritance of Israel, thus he would probably need to be alive, thus he would probably have expected that God is beyond the restraints of death and could raise him up again... that just happened to not be his plan.
E. Yes, we are not Abraham... but does that mean that we can not reach such faith in God?

This still presupposes God as an external entity, imposing His will on us. In my view, my conscience is a manifestation of God's will. The reason why I have an idea of right and wrong in the first place is because of God. Therefore God "cannot" tell me to do what I know is wrong. It's not a limitation on God's ability; it's a recognition that God is the basis of morality.

Click to expand...

Now that is an interesting idea. How do you reconcile the fact that everyone has a conscience with that of conflicting moral codes? In other words, if everyone has a bit in their brain telling them exactly what is right and wrong according to God, then how are people able to disagree on what is moral and immoral? Surely they should all feel the same thing? Or do you feel that subconciously/secretly everybody does and they are merely trying to justify their actions?

God is good means that God is goodness itself, not just that God decides what's to be considered good.

Click to expand...

Does this mean your conscience is God, or at least an expression of God? If so how do you know that this is unchangeable? I suppose if one of your beliefs happened to be that God is unchangeable and therefore morality is unchangeable then that would make such a scenario impossible.

First of all, it's a story.

Click to expand...

Well I certainly wasn't trying to imply that it actually happened. Just that I felt it was a similar scenario to that given in the thread starter but stated in a format which is slightly more familiar and therefore useful to consider.

It isn't the case that because God asked Abraham to kill Isaac that means that killing Isaac was right or moral. It is the case that God tested Abraham by asking him to do what was immoral.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But God is the authority on what is right and wrong. If God says something is right, then it is right, no arguments. To Abraham, that is exactly what it seemed like God was saying, that God had changed morality and Abraham would have to accept this. Afterall, if you were prepared to accept the morality preached to you beforehand, then surely it would be foolish to reject it when the same authority changed it? To do such would be to put your relative morals over that of moral absolutes or in other words, what you would like to be right and wrong over what is right and wrong.

I can't believe what I'm hearing...well not so much hearing more seeing.

Click to expand...

Why's that Saw?

Fluffy said:

Now that is an interesting idea. How do you reconcile the fact that everyone has a conscience with that of conflicting moral codes? In other words, if everyone has a bit in their brain telling them exactly what is right and wrong according to God, then how are people able to disagree on what is moral and immoral? Surely they should all feel the same thing? Or do you feel that subconciously/secretly everybody does and they are merely trying to justify their actions?

Click to expand...

No, we don't all have a bit telling us exactly what is right and wrong. I don't believe that's what a conscience is. We all (or most of us anyway) have a bit in us that desires to "be good." When we violate that, we feel bad about ourselves because we are not what we wish to be. That's what I think a conscience is. People generally agree on the basic principles of what is good - to act in such a way that is beneficial to oneself and to others. Where we disagree is on the specifics of how to bring it about. Moreover, when the interests of two different groups come into conflict with each other, we disagree on which group takes precedence over the other.

For example, the abortion debate: whichever side of the debate you fall on, it is not the case that the other side does not value human life and dignity. Both sides do. But there is a conflict between the perceived interests of the unborn foetus and the potential mother. People disagree on whose interests should take precedence, but both sides base their position on their valuing human life and dignity.

Fluffy said:

Does this mean your conscience is God, or at least an expression of God?

Click to expand...

An expression of God. To use biblical language, "the likeness of God."

Fluffy said:

If so how do you know that this is unchangeable? I suppose if one of your beliefs happened to be that God is unchangeable and therefore morality is unchangeable then that would make such a scenario impossible.

Click to expand...

The ideal of goodness does not change. How we as finite humans living in time and space view the specifics of what is good does change.

For example, I believe that it always was and always will be the case that it is good to treat all humans with dignity and worth. That is an ideal that does not change over time. However, in certain times and cultures, some groups of people were seen as "less than human" and they were enslaved and/or exterminated. The people who did these things did not reject the ideal of human dignity and worth - some (like Jefferson) argued very eloquently for it - but the cultural influences made it more difficult for them to extend it to everyone. At any given time, we express Godliness/Goodness imperfectly (which is something to keep in mind when we start getting self-righteous).

Fluffy said:

Agreed. But God is the authority on what is right and wrong. If God says something is right, then it is right, no arguments.

Click to expand...

No, God is good, the basis of goodness. God does not tell us exactly what is right and wrong. We decide what is right and wrong in any given situation. We decide as moral agents how to bring about the good as best we can - influenced by history and culture - and then we decide whether or not we are going to act in accordance to our own conclusions.

Fluffy said:

To Abraham, that is exactly what it seemed like God was saying, that God had changed morality and Abraham would have to accept this. Afterall, if you were prepared to accept the morality preached to you beforehand, then surely it would be foolish to reject it when the same authority changed it? To do such would be to put your relative morals over that of moral absolutes or in other words, what you would like to be right and wrong over what is right and wrong.

Click to expand...

The story does not say what Abraham thought of God's instructions. That's your interpretation of the story. It only says what God said and what Abraham did. The interpretation that I'm promoting is that God did not change morality and demand that Abraham accept it. God tested Abraham by asking him to do something that went against morality. And the point of the story was not what is moral; it is the test of faith. To focus on the morality is to miss the point of the story, imo. It's the equivalent of hearing the Goldilocks story and focusing on how it is that bears can own a house.

You know God did something similar to this in the OT. The outcome was QUITE a surprise.

I apologize for posting the same thing twice, but I really don't want this to get lost in the noise of this thread:

Melody--if Christ's teachings said you should murder everyone you know, would you obey?

Mr. Spinkles, if Christs teachings said kill everyone you know then most people probably wouldn't follow it. Melody probably wouldn't have even come to the christian faith if it said that. Jesus, however, did not teach this so saying "what if he did" is pointless because in that case who knows what would result.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

:bonk:

Lycan said:

But the above is not like your previous example because this is complete assumption on your part. Others may disagree on this point, not to mention the assumption could be completely wrong and god would ask this, you just don't know it.

Click to expand...

That's why I included a caveat at the beginning:

Because the conditions themselves are flawed, at least so far as many of us have a preconceived notion of God's qualities.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know it's an assumption. Or rather, I know you'd take it as an assumption; you don't know that God hasn't spoken to me extensively on the matter.

This is a reflective statement; like a mirror, the statement changes depending upon who is reading it. If I look in the mirror, I say the mirror shows me. If you look in the mirror, it shows you. If we're not careful, we may end up in a fight.

Reflective statements are used in logic puzzles where someone can only ask a single question of two people. By putting "you" or "the other person" into the question, you can ask two different questions and thus get the two answers you need.