You're not a politician, are you?
Don't worry... So far as I know, separation church and state remains relatively intact.
That’s an eloquent way, I have to admit, to avoid a trouble. But technically speaking, such an explanation creates a tautology, don’t you think? On this account, things are not good because they could be otherwise (bad). Things are good because they are good, i.e. it’s just how they are. Such an explanation merely provides labels to the nature of God and his creation, like “material” and “immaterial”, it doesn’t provide an explanation why you should be good.
Tautologies aren't necessarily false, solely by virtue of being a tautology. Many tautologies are indeed self-evidentially true. It's true that my answer rather simplifies the question, by applying a kind of intrinsicality to good and evil, but then I would regard to the question itself as offering two somewhat poor ways of looking at a situation which is not by necessity complicated. As it happens, and this is just a small point, I tend not to regard "things" as bad, only actions. One is acting with accordance with the will of God or one is not- God's will is still being done either way, but it works out best for ourselves and those we affect if we are being "good". But, this is only tangentially relevant to the OP, which is about sources of ethical knowledge more than nature or application, as I see it.
What criteria would you choose for judging if the action is right?
Personally? I tend to judge actions based on my understanding of the λογος, the divine pattern/Word/will/law of the universe- the rules by which the natural world runs, the way that God imparts understanding to us of what we are to do. For me in most situations, this means considering first to love God, and to love my neighbor as wholly as I know how. These imperatives are the summary of all the law, according to Christ who is the law's fulfillment.
But, I certainly don't expect someone else to use for themselves a criteria for judgment that is based on my personal understanding the world. One doesn't have to do so, though, in order to slaughter the innocents as per the suggestion of the OP's God. Presumably, whatever lens you choose to see the world through, God has established himself within that framework by the end of the first half of the first sentence, and explained what he wants you to do within that framework by the second half. If you think that only rationality can determine ethics, I presume that is how God would make that will known to you. Most people have done something in their life worth being killed over, it shouldn't be all that hard. This is a weakness on non-theistic ethics from my way of seeing it- humans can be convinced of just about anything when they think they are the master of their own destiny and actions. By far the easiest man to exploit, is the one who lacks humility.
And so I maintain that those who claim they would never slaughter for the sake of God in the OP, are either being dishonest with themselves or giving far too little credit to God, even as a presumably fictional concept. Well, or both at once. Whatever it is that you think is informing your decision not to kill innocents, if God is the one trying to de-convince you that you are right, He will do so. I see the nature of God as a benevolent one, but even if he were simply trying to exploit you for some foul purpose, omnipotence and omniscience really do count for something next to the fragility of a single human intellect. That you have free will to make these kind of decisions with in the first place is an act of grace and mercy, not entitlement.
Hehe, well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is I’m trying to engage intellectually honest and inquiring minds to examine their own belief systems and find inconsistencies. I consider myself one of those minds and believe me, I love finding folks who would tear my system apart and make me rebuild it. It’s intellectually rewarding, entertaining, and very educational. My problem of course--as I find it especially on this forum board--not many folks consider cognitive dissonance as something entertaining and rewarding.
No argument here. The ethical stance unexamined is not a stance at all. And the best way to examine a thing often is to break it down and put it back together, if you can. But you must admit, there is a bit of a stigma attached to the phrase "I would happily kill innocent people." Never mind that all of us could very well be driven to that same fate- it invites an unconsidered response simply in account of the emotional impact of the statement. Killing innocents promotes a gut reaction, not studied contemplation.
I have to agree here entirely. I think if you’re a true believer, God is the ultimate being you can trust. Such notions as “innocent” and “killing” have meaning only relative to the context of this being. He is the one who tells you what “innocent” is. To believe otherwise, I would argue, is to get yourself into a logical trouble, unless you’re an atheist of course.
I think the possibility of atheism is not included in the hypothetical of the question, which established first off that you accept the persuaders identity as being God himself. Not that, of course, atheism lets one off the hook where morality is concerned- if you aren't deciding ethics based on faith in a deity, you still have to have an ethical framework based on some sort of reasoning, or worse, be at the whim of culture or emotion (admittedly, the course of most people most of the time, and probably all of us some of the time).
