A simple question for theists

[RoadRunner79]

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.

This is a difficult question.   I would have to be 100% sure it was God telling me to do so.  But on the other hand, I would think that I would have difficulty killing someone without an immediate need to do so.  It would certainly test me, and I would assume that there are things I do not know.

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.

I'm with Neo on this... the question certainly does seem to bring to mind the story of Abraham and Issac as well as at least one other I can think of that would apply.  Also, the hypothetical removed the possibility of doubt as to the origins or the command.   On the other hand, I would trust in God's sovereignty, and look to His nature which has been shown to us.

[SteveII]

That was before the law was given. Now it would be a contradiction to be commanded to murder--even if you thought God would raise the person up again. I don't think we should consider a contradiction from God as a possibility.

So, your source of objective morality changed the moral guidelines?

Weird...

I am talking about our obligations to obey a command. We have one. #6. I think Divine Command Theory is correct.

[Angrboda]

Book, chapter, and verse?

2 Tim chapter 3 starting @ 10 and going though chapter 4 ending at 8
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

There is a whole set up to this back of scripture. I do not understand why the chapter ended early/mid point. Anyway the crux of what is being discussed is where timothy can find the discernement he may need to navigate all the negitiv influences Paul is writing him about. This can be found in verse 16

16 All Scripture is given by God. (not just OT, as we live under the NT we are responsible for that as it has since been deemed Christian Scripture.) And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. 17 Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.

17 kinda sums it all up. If we seek to do a good work under God/a Work God would have us do, then it must by the book/scripture it must be done.

This is also supported in chapter 4:3 forward in that Paul identifies that their will be a time when people will want to stop listening the truth Timothy has derived from the scriptures, but Paul encourages him to stay the course even thought people aren't going to like what he has to say.

better yet in:
2peter 1:19 through the end of chapter 3

Peter illustrates by identifying false teachers of his day by using scripture against what these false teachers do and say. by the scripture he is able to identify several different sins from which these teachers build their ministries from.

So from Paul the over all "If you want to do a good deed for God a deed in which God has purposed for you (meaning along the lines of a life calling) then it is from the scripture (ALL OF IT NOT JUST THE OT) can you find ALL The info you need to COMPLETE Your task.

Then Peter delivers a sermon using what paul said to identify what plagued his own church/ministry. And He showed his congregation how 'false teachers' do not measure up against scripture.

First of all, none of this is God speaking, so no He didn't tell us not to accept any further revelations. The passage in 2 Timothy indicates that the bible is sufficient, not that it is complete. That's your own conclusion which you are adding to the text. The text doesn't say anything about it being a complete set of God's revelations. Since God does in fact order the killing of people in the bible, it's strictly your interpretation that the ordering of another killing would be contrary to what is in the bible. In that I think you are wrong. You simply used this 'no new revelations' line as a dodge to avoid answering the question. Scripture doesn't back you up.

[Faith No More]

I am talking about our obligations to obey a command. We have one. #6. I think Divine Command Theory is correct.

I'm confused. Are you saying that god's commands have always been moral but our obligations to obey them have changed?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

So, your source of objective morality changed the moral guidelines?

Weird...

I am talking about our obligations to obey a command. We have one. #6. I think Divine Command Theory is correct.

Do you adhere to a strong divine command theory (Augustine) or a more modified, weaker version (Scotus)? How does one determine which form of divine command theory is correct?

[SteveII]

I am talking about our obligations to obey a command. We have one. #6. I think Divine Command Theory is correct.

I'm confused.  Are you saying that god's commands have always been moral but our obligations to obey them have changed?

No, we are to obey. We have a commandment that says not to murder. We have a question that asks it is okay to murder if God says so. I say, we already have instructions not to murder and God will not contradict it. The same question can be phrased with each of the 10 commandments. If you do, the question "If God said..." become silly. (No other Gods, honor father and mother, adultery, false witness, etc.).

If you are referring to Abraham/Isaac, God commanded him to offer his son to him. We have no idea what was going on on Abraham's head other than he was accustomed to having discussions with angels and God and had tremendous faith in God's promise to form a great nation from Isaac. Here is a thought exercise: what if the month before he had been given a commandment from God that he understood to be for all time: do not kill children?  Is it possible that God would then command something contradictory? No, I don't think so.

EDIT: I would like to add that nowhere on the stone tablets a footnote that read: "Unless otherwise commanded"

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

It's because you don't understand. 

As a person who believes in God, I cannot separate Him from reality or from morality. Because I believe He created both. I believe He created this world in such a way that directly killing an innocent person goes against Natural Law. Meaning it goes against the way our world works, because that is how God created our world to work. Thus we have an inherent understanding that directly killing an innocent person is wrong. 

That is what I believe about God. If God told me to kill an innocent person, I would think "well, obviously everything I thought I knew about God is completely wrong, and this entity who is speaking to me is not the God that I thought I was worshiping." If that happened, literally nothing would be what I thought it was. And so I would stick to the only thing I know for sure - myself and my own instincts. My instincts tell me that I shouldn't kill innocent people, and so I would follow that.  

As for Abraham, remember that God did't actually have Abraham kill his son, but was merely testing him. Furthermore, I personally find it hard to believe that story actually happened in the literal way it was written. Was there a highly religious Jewish man named Abraham who had a son? I believe so. But did the story happen exactly the way it was written? Did God's voice sound from the sky and tell Abraham to kill his son, and then tell him not to? My guess would be no. Perhaps the way it was written was allegorically to show that this man, Abraham, was tested by God in some way during his life. But not necessarily that things happened literally as they are written in this Old Testament story. I can't speak for all Christians, but as a Catholic, I am free to take a literal or allegorical approach to the Old Testament stories. I tend to lean to the latter. 

Lastly, Christianity is defined by the New Testament. The gospels, the teachings of Christ, etc. Christ clearly taught us that killing is wrong. And if you're Catholic, the main authority is the Church, not the bible. The Church teaches that the direct killing of an innocent person is a very serious sin that goes against God. That's what I believe.

[Neo-Scholastic]

2 Tim chapter 3 starting @ 10 and going though chapter 4 ending at 8
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

There is a whole set up to this back of scripture. I do not understand why the chapter ended early/mid point. Anyway the crux of what is being discussed is where timothy can find the discernement he may need to navigate all the negitiv influences Paul is writing him about. This can be found in verse 16

16 All Scripture is given by God. (not just OT, as we live under the NT we are responsible for that as it has since been deemed Christian Scripture.) And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. 17 Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.

17 kinda sums it all up. If we seek to do a good work under God/a Work God would have us do, then it must by the book/scripture it must be done.

This is also supported in chapter 4:3 forward in that Paul identifies that their will be a time when people will want to stop listening the truth Timothy has derived from the scriptures, but Paul encourages him to stay the course even thought people aren't going to like what he has to say.

better yet in:
2peter 1:19 through the end of chapter 3

Peter illustrates by identifying false teachers of his day by using scripture against what these false teachers do and say. by the scripture he is able to identify several different sins from which these teachers build their ministries from.

So from Paul the over all "If you want to do a good deed for God a deed in which God has purposed for you (meaning along the lines of a life calling) then it is from the scripture (ALL OF IT NOT JUST THE OT) can you find ALL The info you need to COMPLETE Your task.

Then Peter delivers a sermon using what paul said to identify what plagued his own church/ministry. And He showed his congregation how 'false teachers' do not measure up against scripture.

First of all, none of this is God speaking, so no He didn't tell us not to accept any further revelations.  The passage in 2 Timothy indicates that the bible is sufficient, not that it is complete.  That's your own conclusion which you are adding to the text.  The text doesn't say anything about it being a complete set of God's revelations.  Since God does in fact order the killing of people in the bible, it's strictly your interpretation that the ordering of another killing would be contrary to what is in the bible.  In that I think you are wrong.  You simply used this 'no new revelations' line as a dodge to avoid answering the question.  Scripture doesn't back you up.

Other that the story of Abraham and Isaac, commandments to kill are nearly always proceeded by God pronouncing His judgement on those to be smitten. If the OP's hypothetical command followed the biblical template then there would be no doubt as to the reason for His judgment. Even then, blind obedience is not a requirement (SteveII take note). Prior to the destruction of Sodom, Abraham seems to have managed to stay God's hand at least until Lot and his daughters could escape.

With respect to Drich's scriptural references, throughout the OT God spoke through the prophets. They were authoritative. Likewise, Christians consider Paul and the other apostles authoritative, for various reasons. New revelations are always to be tested against prior revelations. For example:

"And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures." - Luke 24:25-27

That continuity is essential to the faith.

[Brian37]

I'm confused.  Are you saying that god's commands have always been moral but our obligations to obey them have changed?

No, we are to obey. We have a commandment that says not to murder. We have a question that asks it is okay to murder if God says so. I say, we already have instructions not to murder and God will not contradict it. The same question can be phrased with each of the 10 commandments. If you do, the question "If God said..." become silly. (No other Gods, honor father and mother, adultery, false witness, etc.).

If you are referring to Abraham/Isaac, God commanded him to offer his son to him. We have no idea what was going on on Abraham's head other than he was accustomed to having discussions with angels and God and had tremendous faith in God's promise to form a great nation from Isaac. Here is a thought exercise: what if the month before he had been given a commandment from God that he understood to be for all time: do not kill children?  Is it possible that God would then command something contradictory? No, I don't think so.

No, you have an old book of claims. The real reason humans don't murder is evolutionary. Cooperation within a group fosters safety in numbers. Humans don't however have a problem murdering those of rival groups. Just like male lions will not kill their own cubs but will kill those of rivals.

We do kill out of self defense and we do kill in war. Your God does not reflect our modern western society it reflects the ignr ignorant tribal rival kingships of the times it was written. Our human empathy is why we have grown to ignore that nasty tribal book, and why we cherry pick it in the west to justify being more humane. 

You worship a nasty bully of a character. A fictional character all be it, just that you haven't realized it yet.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...killing an innocent person goes against Natural Law. Meaning it goes against the way our world works, because that is how God created our world to work. Thus we have an inherent understanding that directly killing an innocent person is wrong.

Exactly that. At the same time, The OP's hypothetical is that you believe the person is 100% innocent. As fallen creatures, we must admit to our own limitations - there is no 100% and so while you may believe the person is innocent isn't it also possible that you are not in command of all the facts and must trust that God's judgment is just?

As for Abraham, remember that God did't actually have Abraham kill his son, but was merely testing him. Furthermore, I personally find it hard to believe that story actually happened in the literal way it was written...Did God's voice sound from the sky and tell Abraham to kill his son, and then tell him not to? My guess would be no...as a Catholic, I am free to take a literal or allegorical approach to the Old Testament stories. I tend to lean to the latter. 

As you know, I feel people should be careful to discern between what should be taken figuratively as opposed to literal versus. In this case, Gen 22, figurative elements are clearly present, however, I see no reason to take this story as pure allegory.

Lastly, Christianity is defined by the New Testament.

Sorry, but I must protest. The NT cannot be divorced from the OT. As per my earlier citation, on the road to Emmasus, the resurrected Christ opened the eyes of his disciples to show them how the Law and Prophets spoke of Him. Or in John 5:46 where Jesus says "if you had believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me..." Or the story of the eunuch reading Isaiah and not understanding it until Peter explained it to him. Christianity is defined by both the NT and the OT together as a seamless narrative.