Which Button Would You Push?

[Halbhh]

Yep

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV.

Why did God push button B? I mean what did the camels ever do? Not to mention what did the infants ever do?

I am not judging God yet, just asking what kind of punishment is ever just if infants are being killed?

Since according to the common bible God brings all the dead back -- they are "asleep"/"sleep" (the actual word used many times, old testament and new) and will be awakened...therefore if you try to suggest they are dead in a real way and won't wake up, then you are off into some other story than the one in the common bible. You'd have a new 'god' there quite unlike the one in the text in a very radical change.

 

[durangodawood]

Because it is an ethical question. Notice most people here are posting about questioning the question and not questioning why God killed infants to punish them.

I guess I see God as beyond considerations of ethics. At least the God of the Bible.

 

[Halbhh]

I guess I see God as beyond considerations of ethics. At least the God of the Bible.

Not to mention He just cancels death. God is the One Who reverses or undoes death, basically.

 

[durangodawood]

Not to mention He just cancels death. God is the One Who reverses or undoes death, basically.

So this is the "better place" reasoning that reconciles God's genocidal command to human moral sensibilities?

 

[public hermit]

I wouldn't convict him on that charge

Are you saying people who kill workers at abortion clinics, incidentally, since those same killers just happen to be targeting abortion clinics, should be exonerated? Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Sketcher]

Because it is an ethical question. Notice most people here are posting about questioning the question and not questioning why God killed infants to punish them.

No human being can morally take another human being's life outside the bounds of God's permission. Because God's permission is needed, he must have authority to give that permission. Because he has authority to give that permission, which no person or group can rightly claim for themselves, there's not really a problem with God giving that permission.

This is of course separate from people wrongly claiming that they have God's permission to kill others. Such people are usually either power-mad political/military leaders, or crazy.

 

[Halbhh]

So this is the "better place" reasoning that reconciles God's genocidal command to human moral sensibilities?

If one uses the assumption that death is final -- in other words that the God of the Bible that reverses all death doesn't exist....

Then of course it would appear using that assumption of death-is-final/God-doesn't-exist that logically all the instructions in the Bible from 'God' to destroy certain cities and such are genocidal, since death-is-final/God-doesn't-exist. And that would contradict the idea of God being 'good' and thus prove the bible inconsistent, and thus prove the bible false, which would then imply that...God doesn't exist. The place one started from.

heh heh...it's funny what logical does, when it's circular, right.

If one assumes that God doesn't exist as the starting assumption, then of course logically it will follow sooner or later the conclusion is that God doesn't exist.

 

[durangodawood]

No human being can morally take another human being's life outside the bounds of God's permission. Because God's permission is needed, he must have authority to give that permission. Because he has authority to give that permission, which no person or group can rightly claim for themselves, there's not really a problem with God giving that permission.

This is of course separate from people wrongly claiming that they have God's permission to kill others. Such people are usually either power-mad political/military leaders, or crazy.

Rightly? Wrongly?

These distinctions are worthless because from our point of view as humans it's entirely a matter of faith about what God did or didn't say to somebody else.

 

[HARK!]

Are you saying people who kill workers at abortion clinics,

No. If that is what I was saying; that is what I would have said.

How did you come up with that?

incidentally since those same killers just happen to be targeting abortion clinics, should be exonerated?

I didn't present an example of killers. I presented an example of an arsonist who, inadvertently killed someone.

You see, IMO he would be a terrorist for burning down an abortion clinic; but he would not be guilty of premeditated murder.

Technically, at least in one state that I know of, if one intentionally burns down his neighbor's tool shed; that's an act of terrorism. If there happened to be a hobo sleeping in the shed, he would probably be charged with murder.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Your line of questioning doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Non sequitur.

 

[HARK!]

Someone who makes plans and carries out plans to murder a person or people.

When contemplating the ethics and morality of such questions, I have to take a deep breath, and ponder the applicability of this question: What would George W. Bush do?

 

[Sketcher]

Rightly? Wrongly?

These distinctions are worthless because from our point of view as humans it's entirely a matter of faith about what God did or didn't say to somebody else.

If I'm reading the OP's inquiry correctly, it's not asking if God really said it or not, but if God said it, was he right to say it.

 

[durangodawood]

If one uses the assumption that death is final -- in other words that the God of the Bible that reverses all death doesn't exist....

Then of course it would appear using that assumption of death-is-final/God-doesn't-exist that logically all the instructions in the Bible from 'God' to destroy certain cities and such are genocidal, since death-is-final/God-doesn't-exist. And that would contradict the idea of God being 'good' and thus prove the bible inconsistent, and thus prove the bible false, which would then imply that...God doesn't exist. The place one started from.

heh heh...it's funny what logical does, when it's circular, right.

If one assumes that God doesn't exist as the starting assumption, then of course logically it will follow sooner or later the conclusion is that God doesn't exist.

Elsewhere in the bible there's the pretty strong implication that killing other people, particularly innocents, is just bad. This is even the view of most Christians, regardless of afterlife possibilities.

 

[Halbhh]

Elsewhere in the bible there's the pretty strong implication that killing other people, particularly innocents, is just bad. This is even the view of most Christians, regardless of afterlife possibilities.

Yes, for us to kill someone removes them from this life where they were learning/choosing/having a chance to change or grow in love (at least having that chance). Not to mention it's typically a painful assault of some kind. When God gave the most basic law, the ten commandment simple law, the injunction against murder was one of only 6 given about relating with other people.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

God can push B because he knows. We can't because we simply don't know enough.

 

[klutedavid]

If there was a button A to kill all of the terrorists in a country that are going to in the future kill people and a button B to kill everyone in that country, what would you do?

Nothing?
Push the A button?
Push the B button?

A+B = less carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, for us to kill someone removes them from this life where they were learning/choosing/having a chance to change or grow in love (at least having that chance). Not to mention it's typically a painful assault of some kind. When God gave the most basic law, the ten commandment simple law, the injunction against murder was one of only 6 given about relating with other people.

Sounds like a bunch of post hoc rationalizing after sensing the need to blank-slate the land.

 

[HARK!]

God can push B because he knows. We can't because we simply don't know enough.

Would you then say that man has no authority impose a penalty for thoughtcrime; that a man can only hold another man accountable to his actions?

 

[public hermit]

I didn't present an example of killers. I presented an example of an arsonist who, inadvertently killed someone.

You see, IMO he would be a terrorist for burning down an abortion clinic; but he would not be guilty of premeditated murder

When you light a match to burn down some structure, do you clear the area for bodies? Do you concern yourself with the destructive potential you are about to ignite? Or, do you fire it up as fast as you can, so that you can watch the world burn? An arsonist is just a murderer in waiting.

 

[Halbhh]

Sounds like a bunch of post hoc rationalizing after sensing the need to blank-slate the land.

Ok, I suppose you could say that any account/history is just post hoc really, and victors always define the history, etc.

To me love can't exist without freedom and freedom by definition is freedom of choice and action -- 'agency', meaning one is free to aid others or to harm them (by definition since being free to only do aid isn't freedom, but instead would be control). Ergo if freedom exists then evil will also. So, if love can exist, ever, then evil must exist also, always (and no other situation is possible).

So, the problem of existence then would be to solve the inevitable problem that free beings that are able to potentially love can and would do evil also.

They would always (every conceivable scenario) be dangerous to do evils until changed profoundly in some way by experience. Annealed as it were. Thus what is in Romans chapter 6 makes a lot of sense to me: the 'influence' theory of atonement.

 

[HARK!]

When you light a match to burn down some structure, do you clear the area for bodies?

I don't burn down structures.

Do you concern yourself with the destructive potential you are about to ignite?

Not applicable.

Or, do you fire it up as fast as you can, so that you can watch the world burn?

Not applicable.

An arsonist is just a murderer in waiting.

That's like saying that trespassers who go driving through tall grassy fields are just murderers in the waiting; if they don't clear the area for reclined bodies before driving through.

The OP answered my question; and I'm satisfied with his answer. I'll leave it there.