Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Huh? Are you serious?
Well, we could just as well do away with law and morality altogether then.
Though shalt not kill. Would you do so for your God?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Huh? Are you serious?
Well, we could just as well do away with law and morality altogether then.
Just consider:
What difference exactly does it make if you get bitten by a dog, or injured in a similar way by a person?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The dog cannot be held responsible, the human can.
The human should know better. Therefor humans biting other humans can be prevented. Human law and morality are the tools for it and dogs cannot be expected to understand them because, well, they can't.
Why is it, you suppose, that when a dog bites a human it's the owner of the dog that is to be held responsible and not the dog?
You are surely not suggesting that the dog should be detained for battery, or that the human shouldn't?
According to your arguments there is no difference between:
- someone hitting a person with his car because the brakes didn't work, and
- someone hitting a person with his car because he purposely steered his car into the person in order to seriously injure or kill the other person.
I do agree with those who have inferred that there are places in the bible where man has used God as an excuse to kill,to enforce their own prejudices onto others, this is another point to confirm the case of not taking the bible literally.
to use discretion when reading the bible.
the ten commandments says "thou shall not kill" if a theist is truly listening to God , he would understand any order to kill would be from Satan and not God.
as far as animals killing humans..there are those who would argue that it was directed by God..
to use discretion when reading the bible.
the ten commandments says "thou shall not kill" if a theist is truly listening to God , he would understand any order to kill would be from Satan and not God.
as far as animals killing humans..there are those who would argue that it was directed by God..
You are focusing on the doer of the action, and I am focusing on the recipient of the action.
Two stories:
You are in a boat and you are rowing slowly on a lake that is in mist, so you barely see ahead of you.
Suddenly, your boat is hit by another boat. You start swearing, "Hey, moron, watch where you're rowing!" and get really angry.
Then you look more closely and see that the other boat it empty. Suddenly, your anger subsides and you move on, rowing your way.
You walk down the street, and someone calls after you "You're an idiot!" You instantly become angry, determined to tell the person what they deserve for calling you an idiot, you hastily turn around - and see it was a person with Down Syndrome that called you an idiot.
Your anger instantly subsides, and you keep walking.
How come?
When we assume intention behind an action, we get angry. When we don't, we don't.
The physical damage or the action may be the same, whether the action was performed by noone (as in the case of the empty boat hitting yours) or by someone whom you consider mentally incompetent (as in the case of the Down Syndrome person calling you an idiot).
But our projection of intention is what makes the difference to how we think and feel about an incident.
When theists kill people in the name of God: is that justified killing or not?
FYI:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo ti-rəṣoḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment and self-defense.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo ti-rəṣoḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment and self-defense.
it is a subjective term.
a person can justify an action for themselves and that action not be justified to someone else.
IOW a person can believe that he is justified in killing someone because he believes he is following Gods orders, this does not mean that society agrees with that justification.(in this example i would not accept that justification)
--
I have not met a person yet who can follow all laws, either man made or God made, when they break a law they tend to try to justify that action with some excuse..(i was in a hurry officer,i can't afford the insurance, etc..)
in the case of the Insurance(vehicle in this case), it it justified if a person does not have the money for insurance?
(you realize this means we are punishing those who are poor, for being poor.)
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but what is your point with this? To me your post only validates the difference between injury caused by accident and injury caused by intent. There is a reason why your personage gets angry when he assumes intent.
That's not the premise. What if God told you explicitly to kill someone? If you wouldn't do it, then you are disobedient to God and didn't learn the lesson of the story of Abraham.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
By blaming and punishing man for being exactly what he created.
The potter makes a pot with a hole in it then blames the pot and not himself when the pot leaks.
Regards
DL
This reason being?
This refers to the Abrahamic kind of God only.
not if i thought it was Satan disguising himself as God..
I do not believe for a second that God would tell me to kill someone..
that is not how he has guided me.
----
so isn't this a case of since there is no other rational explanation then we say God did it?
@NM --
So you believe that your god "speaks" to you, unless he were to tell you something that doesn't fit with your world view, then you're free to discard that because it's obviously Satan. And you don't see why others might see some problems with that?
Actually, other than the whole "eugenics" thing, the Nazis never really tried any other explanations. Once you think that god wants you to kill someone you tend to stop looking of other explanations, you don't need them anymore.
So you believe that your god "speaks" to you, unless he were to tell you something that doesn't fit with your world view, then you're free to discard that because it's obviously Satan. And you don't see why others might see some problems with that?
Actually, other than the whole "eugenics" thing, the Nazis never really tried any other explanations. Once you think that god wants you to kill someone you tend to stop looking of other explanations, you don't need them anymore.
this term 'speaks' is only a word used to communicate a feeling that i have that God is influencing my life..it does not mean i hear voices or that God is in direct/unmisinterpretable communication with me.
considering i feel that God has helped me to form my world view..yes.
never said that..in fact my statement of ' what God wants from me may be different than what God wants for you' backs this up.
IOW i can see how others may find problems with my view..simply because maybe God wants them to have another view.(see 'God doesn't want a world full of clones')
now here is a point i will agree with..
some theist will stop thinking once they find God..this is not right IMO.
we still have the responsibility to take responsibility for our own faith/beliefs.
this requires scrutiny.
IOW because i was told to, is not a valid reason.
(this concept has gotten me fired from plenty of jobs..IE, Question authority.)