Save the world or listen to God?

[ARTHANASIOS]

I would follow the example of god-listener George W. Bush and nuke the whole world!!!

Now seriously, why on earth the good, saint Lord of any monotheistic religion would want you to destroy the world? It would probably be Lucifer in Lord's form who told me that, so I would sent him away with my prayers.
 About murdering someone, murdering is a sin but I may accepeted if the victim was a corrupted politician or something, I don't know for sure...

[russianspy1234]

I would follow the example of god-listener George W. Bush and nuke the whole world!!!

Now seriously, why on earth the good, saint Lord of any monotheistic religion would want you to destroy the world? It would probably be Lucifer in Lord's form who told me that, so I would sent him away with my prayers.
 About murdering someone, murdering is a sin but I may accepeted if the victim was a corrupted politician or something, I don't know for sure...

Number of time GOD has destroyed the world: 1
Number of time Satan has destroyed the world: 0

[ARTHANASIOS]

Number of time GOD has destroyed the world: 1
Number of time Satan has destroyed the world: 0

Well, this is actually false. None of them has truly destroyed the world (we wouldn't exist now if they had) and actually only God has the power to do so.
According to this, the list should be like this:
Number of times God has destroyed the world: 0
Number of times Lucifer has destroyed the world: 0
Number of times God has helped people: many
Number of times Lucifer has harmed people: many

Overall: God >> Lucifer

[TheAccuso]

God can't play the guitar:
Lucifer>>God

[ARTHANASIOS]

God can't play the guitar:
Lucifer>>God

How God can't play the guitar? He can play everything, except for EtG; he can't play a game where a fat-guy who believes in the zodiac randomly gives Nymphs to people!
But Chuck Norris can. So, the true question: God > Chuck Noris ????

Btw, I think this section should be to the religion section and not to the philosophy one.

[russianspy1234]

Number of time GOD has destroyed the world: 1
Number of time Satan has destroyed the world: 0

Well, this is actually false. None of them has truly destroyed the world (we wouldn't exist now if they had) and actually only God has the power to do so.
According to this, the list should be like this:
Number of times God has destroyed the world: 0
Number of times Lucifer has destroyed the world: 0
Number of times God has helped people: many
Number of times Lucifer has harmed people: many

Overall: God >> Lucifer

i was using it in the sense that nuking the world would destroy it: killing near everyone, which is what the flood was. i actually toyed with making the number .99 instead of 1, but decided against it.  also, if you feel that teachers help people by imparting knowledge, then lucifer helped adam and eve by getting them to eat from the tree of knowledge. is feeding the hungry helping? cuz lucifer offered jesus food when he was wandering the desert hungry.  and hey, if he's responsible for punishing evil in the afterlife, isnt that helping people in a way?

also:

and that doesnt even include noah's flood or sodom and gemorrah.
source: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

basically, if a powerful being is there telling you to kill people, it's more likely to be GOD than Satan. (assuming you give both beings an equal chance of existing)

[ARTHANASIOS]

1) Lucifer is a crafty tainted being; he gave knowledge to Adam & Eve while he knew humanity wasn't mature enough for such knowledge. Learning a 5-years old boy how to use a gun is NOT a good thing to do. God didn't prevent humanity for aquiring knowledge; he just waited untill humanity was ready for it.
2) Jesus doesn't need food to survive; he is God. Lucifer hadn't gave food to Jesus due to love; he toyed with Jesus and the faith towards God in general. Capitalists toy with people via a similar way; they steal billions from people and after that they hypocritically make donations of 10,000 dollars to poor people. After all, isn't Lucifer responsible for thirst or hunger? Wasn't Lucifer the one who led people towards sin and introduced all the bad things in our lives?
3) Death exists because sin exists. Sin exists because that damn being Lucifer manipulated and driven us into it. If I say that Lucifer is responsible for every death and suffering in the whole world I won't be exaggerating things at all.
4) Lucifer is not going to be the punisher of sinners in Hell (this is just a comical or too simplified representation of afterlife); he is actually going to be punished in Hell too. Actually, Hell is not even an extremely hot, volcanic place. Hell is more like a phsychological punishment.
5) God warns good people about incoming calamities. However, my opinion about flooding, Sodoma etc. is quite different than that of a Bible and I don't have the patience to discuss it right now (it will probably take me a couple of pages).

[OldTrees]

My comment was missed. I am curious what your answer to the general case would be.

Here is the more general and credible situation

Hypothetical situation:
In your pursuit of truth in Normative Ethics, you stumble upon a conclusion that you find morally repulsive. You fail to refute the argument (even with peer review) and you find yourself agreeing with the premises even as you find the conclusion morally revolting.

You now have the conclusion of a moral imperative that you happen to find morally disgusting. What do you do?
(You can use concrete examples if you wish. If the answer depends then explain why and how.)

[northcity4]

Number of time GOD has destroyed the world: 1
Number of time Satan has destroyed the world: 0

Well, this is actually false. None of them has truly destroyed the world (we wouldn't exist now if they had) and actually only God has the power to do so.
According to this, the list should be like this:
Number of times God has destroyed the world: 0
Number of times Lucifer has destroyed the world: 0
Number of times God has helped people: many
Number of times Lucifer has harmed people: many

Overall: God >> Lucifer

i was using it in the sense that nuking the world would destroy it: killing near everyone, which is what the flood was. i actually toyed with making the number .99 instead of 1, but decided against it.  also, if you feel that teachers help people by imparting knowledge, then lucifer helped adam and eve by getting them to eat from the tree of knowledge. is feeding the hungry helping? cuz lucifer offered jesus food when he was wandering the desert hungry.  and hey, if he's responsible for punishing evil in the afterlife, isnt that helping people in a way?

also:

and that doesnt even include noah's flood or sodom and gemorrah.
source: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

basically, if a powerful being is there telling you to kill people, it's more likely to be GOD than Satan. (assuming you give both beings an equal chance of existing)

Things to remember: thank you for using the word 'kill' not 'murder.' If that is the case, then the # of murders is 0 for god. (The people were warned before hand, just like a cop warns a burglar to put down his weapon).

Thank you to whoever posted about how many people were harmed, i think the stats should be murder, not harmed.

God killed: 2.5m                Murdered: 0
Satan killed: 0                   Murdered: 2.5m+humans from then on

To answer Old trees, you mentioned you begin to actually agree with it in this situation. For someone to actually agree with what was once repulsive probably means sub-consciously you see the truth in it. Kinda like when you are first told how babies are made. Sounds repulsive, no way it could ever happen, but you begin to see truth in it (like looking at why we have parents).

Now, in the case of God asking you to bomb the world...are we talking about someone who starts to see the good in it? I for sure still haven't found a reason to do so unless God is the decider of what is moral and what's not.

[storyteller]

My comment was missed. I am curious what your answer to the general case would be.

Here is the more general and credible situation

Hypothetical situation:
In your pursuit of truth in Normative Ethics, you stumble upon a conclusion that you find morally repulsive. You fail to refute the argument (even with peer review) and you find yourself agreeing with the premises even as you find the conclusion morally revolting.

You now have the conclusion of a moral imperative that you happen to find morally disgusting. What do you do?
(You can use concrete examples if you wish. If the answer depends then explain why and how.)

now this is a conundrum. so this is like knowing the world is overpopulated, but still wanting to have kids?
or better discovering a cure or cancer and not releasing it, because the world is overpopulated?
also, a real world example, a man created a genome sequence that when spliced into rice, caused an enzyme to bond to spermatozoa, making it heavy and slow, so this rice would be given to poor countries so they wouldn't breed as fast. Is this genocide? a very polite eugenics? Is it moral to do? is it moral not to do?

how about something truly unsavory, lets say... murder, cold blooded killing of others, that we are brought up to believe is wrong. very few taboos exceed murder. lets say, you discovered that killing 'rich smart people' mathematically made the world a better place and equalized society by creating a more uniform distribution of wealth globally and a lack of greed among people. do you become a serial killer? create a disease of affluence? the dilemma, is do you follow your upbringing and instincts, or rational logical thought, without regard to moral implications.

[OldTrees]

My comment was missed. I am curious what your answer to the general case would be.

Here is the more general and credible situation

Hypothetical situation:
In your pursuit of truth in Normative Ethics, you stumble upon a conclusion that you find morally repulsive. You fail to refute the argument (even with peer review) and you find yourself agreeing with the premises even as you find the conclusion morally revolting.

You now have the conclusion of a moral imperative that you happen to find morally disgusting. What do you do?
(You can use concrete examples if you wish. If the answer depends then explain why and how.)

now this is a conundrum. so this is like knowing the world is overpopulated, but still wanting to have kids?
or better discovering a cure or cancer and not releasing it, because the world is overpopulated?
also, a real world example, a man created a genome sequence that when spliced into rice, caused an enzyme to bond to spermatozoa, making it heavy and slow, so this rice would be given to poor countries so they wouldn't breed as fast. Is this genocide? a very polite eugenics? Is it moral to do? is it moral not to do?

how about something truly unsavory, lets say... murder, cold blooded killing of others, that we are brought up to believe is wrong. very few taboos exceed murder. lets say, you discovered that killing 'rich smart people' mathematically made the world a better place and equalized society by creating a more uniform distribution of wealth globally and a lack of greed among people. do you become a serial killer? create a disease of affluence? the dilemma, is do you follow your upbringing and instincts, or rational logical thought, without regard to moral implications.

It is like those conundrums but slightly stronger. Your rational logical thought concluded that the unsavory action was moral not merely preferred.

Those are really good examples though. 

[storyteller]

define moral.