Save the world or listen to God?

[ARTHANASIOS]

 I agree with Naesala here. If this world is a test, then all the suffering would be gone in the end. Is a teacher evil because he/she have his/her students have a test? If you pass the test, you go to heaven. If you fail, you go to hell. In both cases, students don't know if God really exists for sure, but let's get real, we know what is the right thing to do or the worng thing to do and there is no excuse for evildoing.
 But in this case, we know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give such an order to the people. Except if was Lucifer in God's clothes...

[OldTrees]

But in this case, we know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give such an order to the people.

I have to disagree. We believe that killing people is wrong. However we can be wrong. Therefore we do not know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give the order.

If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?

[ARTHANASIOS]

But in this case, we know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give such an order to the people.

I have to disagree. We believe that killing people is wrong. However we can be wrong. Therefore we do not know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give the order.

If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?

"You shall not kill!" is a law of every serious monotheistic religion and a core rule of every society. God may take the lives of people indirectly (or even directly in some cases), but it is not the same thing. If an ant kills another ant is probably a great crime within an ant's society, but a human can kill an ant without commiting a crime. Replace ant with human and human with God and you probably know what I meant.

[OldTrees]

But in this case, we know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give such an order to the people.

I have to disagree. We believe that killing people is wrong. However we can be wrong. Therefore we do not know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give the order.

If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?

"You shall not kill!" is a law of every serious monotheistic religion and a core rule of every society. God may take the lives of people indirectly (or even directly in some cases), but it is not the same thing. If an ant kills another ant is probably a great crime within an ant's society, but a human can kill an ant without commiting a crime. Replace ant with human and human with God and you probably know what I meant.

So religion claims "You shall not kill". However religion can be wrong. Therefore we do not know that a good-aligned God wouldn't give the order.

Stop trying to avoid the question and actually answer what the topic is about.
"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

[ARTHANASIOS]

"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

Yes, but even then only in very extreme situations and only if an alternative solution wasn't available. But I would behave like this without taking the public opinion into account.

[OldTrees]

"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

Yes, but even then only in very extreme situations and only if an alternative solution wasn't available. But I would behave like this without taking the public opinion into account.

Would this be true for all morally revolting acts or are their exceptions?

[northcity4]

Hold on, yes, If we bombed the world all suffering would be gone, but the Judeo-Christian God isn't someone who uses a restart button. He is willing to fight to make things right...and maybe God learned somethings along the way. After he flooded the earth, he promised to never do it again.

The God in the situation we are talking about is someone who will love you relentlessly because he cares about you that much, regardless of who you are or what you have done. To resist this love=I don't want to be with God which by dentition is Hell. Maybe Hell is imaginatively a place of fire/pain or maybe it just means a place away from God.

When Abraham was asked to kill is son, he went through with it. Maybe this is a test to see how much do we love God. Do we love God so much we will do things even when we don't trust him or maybe the outcome looks so unreal?

[northcity4]

"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

Yes, but even then only in very extreme situations and only if an alternative solution wasn't available. But I would behave like this without taking the public opinion into account.

Would this be true for all morally revolting acts or are their exceptions?

There may be exceptions in some cases. Not all revolting acts are going to be considered in dire times. Sometimes over time it just took you that much time to see the 'light at the end of the tunnel.' Kind of when video game makers make major changes to their game: at first the players hate it, but over time see it as a needed change.

[cometbah]

"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

Assuming that the 'obligation' is of the divine sort, this can be likened to the Sacrifice of Isaac.

Kieerkegaard would answer thus:

Yes. I have faith that God would not require me to perform such a deed, as He is Good. However, I obey God unconditionally.
And so I perform the act with the full intention of completing it, and with complete trust that the act is Good, for it is God's command. At the same time, I believe whole-heartedly that murder is bad, for God has forbidden it.

If the act that I perform for God is murder, its completion would not be permitted by God (e.g. Angel stops the knife), despite my full intention to complete the act.

However, the key point is that I do not think about this. I do not consider such logic, for I have made the Leap of Faith, and accepted the Absurd as the divine.

[OldTrees]

"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

Assuming that the 'obligation' is of the divine sort, this can be likened to the Sacrifice of Isaac.

Kieerkegaard would answer thus:

Yes. I have faith that God would not require me to perform such a deed, as He is Good. However, I obey God unconditionally.
And so I perform the act with the full intention of completing it, and with complete trust that the act is Good, for it is God's command. At the same time, I believe whole-heartedly that murder is bad, for God has forbidden it.

If the act that I perform for God is murder, its completion would not be permitted by God (e.g. Angel stops the knife), despite my full intention to complete the act.

However, the key point is that I do not think about this. I do not consider such logic, for I have made the Leap of Faith, and accepted the Absurd as the divine.

Interesting perspective. Thanks.

[kimham8a]

"If killing everyone were a morally obligatory act, would you do it?"

Assuming that the 'obligation' is of the divine sort, this can be likened to the Sacrifice of Isaac.

Kieerkegaard would answer thus:

Yes. I have faith that God would not require me to perform such a deed, as He is Good. However, I obey God unconditionally.
And so I perform the act with the full intention of completing it, and with complete trust that the act is Good, for it is God's command. At the same time, I believe whole-heartedly that murder is bad, for God has forbidden it.

If the act that I perform for God is murder, its completion would not be permitted by God (e.g. Angel stops the knife), despite my full intention to complete the act.

However, the key point is that I do not think about this. I do not consider such logic, for I have made the Leap of Faith, and accepted the Absurd as the divine.

From a completely logical perspective, this sounds fine, but personally in such a situation I (and, I think, Kieerkegaard) would do no such thing. I think the simple phrase ''killing the world'' and the loose word ''murder'' makes you see things completely objectively, but when you specificallly think of each individual person, for example your mother, screaming and trying to get away from you (because they wouldn't just sit there while you stab them), no matter what you're going to be subjective when you're actually chasing/stabbing them (and therefore not hurt them).
P.S. Just in case someone reading this is convinced that God has just told them to do something crazy, please don't do it, there's ALWAYS a chance you could be wrong. (saw this case on the news with a mother killing her three kids eeek!)

[northcity4]

Right, but what if it took one quick swipe? Like beheading someone? Does this make a difference? If you shoot a nuclear bomb big enough to destroy the world's population, you're not going to hear that person screaming, your going to hear a big explosion and that's it. Plus, by shooting a nuclear bomb, you may feel bad as you have pressed the button, but regardless, it's too late. In the same way, the beheading someone is like pressing a button and then it is too late. Stabbing someone: takes multiple times and thus you have multiple chances to stop.

Another perspective, let's pretend God is not as loving as we think he is. Are we considered his property? If I own a chair and break it, I can do so cause I own it. Then again, if I own a hamster, I cannot legally kill it. In the same way maybe God wants to destroy the non-living property and save the living?

Again, just an idea.