A simple question for theists

[Brian37]

Bullshitters gonna bullshit, Brian.  It's what they do best.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
    by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
    has God made mankind.

Gen 9

Of course, "god" later amended this rule a whole shitload of times!

God is like Trump, says one thing one day, says another another day. But even after all that waffling what does he do in the end anyway, goes back to being a violent bully who tortures you forever if you don't kiss is ass.

[masterofpuppets]

It seems that no theist answered my question properly. I'm not interested in responses saying God would never do that, or that God's implication is different. My question is simple. God is supposed to be the ultimate and perfect moral framework for everything. Therefore, in accordance with the situation of God telling someone that they 100% must kill someone, all theists should answer "yes, because God's intentions are perfect". If not, that is a contradiction of their beliefs.

[henryp]

I'm not a theist, but if God tells me to kill someone I think is innocent, I kill the shit out of them. I'm not rotting in hell for eternity so Ned Flanders can live out his life. Whatever that God wants me to do, with eternity on the line, I'm doing it.

[Brian37]

It seems that no theist answered my question properly. I'm not interested in responses saying God would never do that, or that God's implication is different. My question is simple. God is supposed to be the ultimate and perfect moral framework for everything. Therefore, in accordance with the situation of God telling someone that they 100% must kill someone, all theists should answer "yes, because God's intentions are perfect". If not, that is a contradiction of their beliefs.

Now here is the natural evolutionary reason humans when sane and rational don't do that, at least in the west where people are not indoctrinated with an iron fist.

Humans, like other primates and mammals protect their young. That is the short version. But having said that, we also know other mammals such as lions and zebras will murder the young of rivals. Just like we see in the OT God allowing the genocide of the Egyptian First born over a beef he had with a king.

Humans create religions regardless of the implications and contradictory nature because evolution is flawed, no not the science, but nature itself does not make us 100% knowledgeable at birth. The first thing we encounter in life our our parents. Back in antiquity life was much harder and the mortality rate was far greater, so it was much more of an imperative to toe the clan tribe line. The leaders of that group didn't know what we know now, so when the youth stepped out of line, they had the potential of hurting the entire clan.

The Abraham story reflects the tribal kingships of it's time, where city states competed for resources, this existed even in prior polytheism, and even before any written tradition. Nomadic humans existed before cities, and that was even harder. Is it moral to murder your own child? No, but again, that was then when humans didn't know any better and life had much more risk at a much younger age.

Time and technology has allowed us to be less dependent on loyalty and more focused on information. Loyalty is evolutionary, not biblical, not any holy writing in reality. Humans defend that which is local and we naturally defend our children, but at the same time, most parents see themselves as authority, and that unfortunately not always, but with more conservative families/nations, those parents as individuals can become quite abusive physically and verbally. Mental illness can also lead to that and or murder of one's own child.

But yea, in the context of the bible, this logic fails. If he is perfect and you claim he knows what he is doing and you say you trust him, logic would dictate you do it to be consistent. The real reason nobody sane does that in the west now, isn't just because the law says so, but because of empathy over centuries people got tired of the far right excuses and simply skipped the more violent excuses and loyalty motifs that once lead to more harsh actions. 

I can remember even back in the 1970s an episode of Charlies Angels that addressed child abuse. Kelly had discovered a male cop detective who was hitting his kid. Back then while people frowned on it, the further back in history you go, punishment of a child was seen as a family matter to stay out of. "Spare  the rod spoil the child" as the bible says. Very vile verse.  There is a way to get a child to do what you want without being abusive.

[downbeatplumb]

If God told you that you absolutely must kill someone who, in your eyes, is 100% innocent, would you do it? Why or why not? Assume that you are also 100% sure that God did indeed tell you this and you did not have a hallucination etc.

This question is not religion-specific in any way and is just a hypothetical situation.

Here's the thing sport.

God told us not to follow any new or direct revelations if the contradict how we are told to live in the bible.

If God told one of us to kill someone period apart from what the rule of law is willing t support, then what that person is talking to is not God.

The god of the bible orders death and commits murder personally on a fairly regular basis. So it is established that god has ordered death in the bible. If you would not commit a murder ordered by god because of your morality you are admitting two things, firstly that god is not the arbiter of morality and second that your morality is superior to gods.

[Brian37]

Here's the thing sport.

God told us not to follow any new or direct revelations if the contradict how we are told to live in the bible.

If God told one of us to kill someone period apart from what the rule of law is willing t support, then what that person is talking to is not God.

The god of the bible orders death and commits murder personally on a fairly regular basis. So it is established that god has ordered death in the bible. If you would not commit a murder ordered by god because of your morality you are admitting two things, firstly that god is not the arbiter of morality and second that your morality is superior to gods.

There is a evolutionary psychology to why religion has popped up in all it's forms in our species history. When we group, and even when we surround ourselves centered around completely false claims, that placebo does create safety in numbers. That flawed perception can lead to control over resources. So when humans make up god claims, it is really a reflection of their own desire to have control over their environments. Other species have to kill to survive, and even kill for territory. While the big three monotheism of Abraham are seen by many as being the same violent God/Allah/Yahweh, the motif of a war deity out for conquest exists even in polytheism's history. Polytheism however, is more reflective, all be it just as false, more reflective of our diverse attributes as a species. But it is horrifying to me that the God of those three are seen as mighty justice in an authoritarian God far too widely,  and do not reflect as much as the followers would have one believe, the empathetic side of our species.

Humans in groups unfortunately often in our species turn to the biggest strongest male to protect that group. That is why most god/s in our species history are dominated by male depictions, even in polytheism. Our species has a ways to go to understand globally that females are equally important and half our world's population. 

Our real morality is in our evolution. I said it before, we can see the same acts of empathy in other species. If you raise a kitten and puppy at the same time, on average, they will act like family and protect each other. Our species problem is that we stupidly think we are a superior species when the reality is we are merely one of many. We are good at being humans, but we'd suck at being penguins. We are good at being humans, but we'd suck at being bumble bees. 

We also treat this planet as something to be dominated and tamed. We live on it, but we cannot tame it. We can only manage it to reduce any harm a natural disaster might produce. Our species is far too narcissistic still. We far too often think short term and as time moves on, the next generation will pay even more dearly for our focus on antiquated tribalism.

[Flavius]

Well.. Let's not forget the medieval ages where we slaughtered innocent people in the name of religion and because "it was God's will."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What a stupid fucking question.

Boru

[Minimalist]

Well.. Let's not forget the medieval ages where we slaughtered innocent people in the name of religion and because "it was God's will."

Or, at least the fucking pope's.

[SteveII]

It seems that no theist answered my question properly. I'm not interested in responses saying God would never do that, or that God's implication is different. My question is simple. God is supposed to be the ultimate and perfect moral framework for everything. Therefore, in accordance with the situation of God telling someone that they 100% must kill someone, all theists should answer "yes, because God's intentions are perfect". If not, that is a contradiction of their beliefs.

"Thou shalt not murder" seems to apply. So, not murdering a person would in fact be obeying God. Since it is possible that your hypothetical personal instructions might be misunderstood, not originating from God, or a product of a mental defect, I would say not murdering is the right things to do. So, no dilemma, no contradiction.