Though shalt not kill. Would you do so for your God?

[wynn]

Theists have, throughout history and present, justified violence against others on account that theists, because they are theists, are entitled to do so, and that others must give in to the theists.

people through out history and present justify violence against others on account of whatever popular institutions are likely to draw public sympathy - IOW anything that is a popular institution has the potential to called upon to emblazon provocateurs/justify acts.

Note that it is only the theists who justify killing others in the name of God.

Just like it is no coincidence that it is communists that justify killing others in the name of communism ... although in the case of god you have the added issue of advocating in the name of something that is fully capable and determined to deliver the result anyway (like illuminating the sun with a solar powered torch) ... hence such acts are primarily about the before mentioned occupational duty (ie protection or establishing power)

Any person might kill; but only theists justify killing in the name of God; only theists claim that when they kill someone, they do so in the name of God.

aka communists in the name of communism, rebels in the the name of rebellion, colonials in the name of colonialism, entrepreneurs in the name of capital returns etc etc

You seem to be working on the assumption that no religion in particular is the right one / superior to all others - and that thus, it makes no difference if a person claims to be killing in the name of God.

Most people in this thread are not making this assumption, but instead assume that a particular religion is the right one, the superior one - and so members of that religion would be justified to kill in the name of God (and that those to be killed need to refrain from resisting those religionists).

Don't worry. The chance of such an act happening under the banner of such a general designation as "theist" is non-existent.

I was using a general term, as I don't know which religion is the right one.

It won't even be "hindu", "jew", "christian", etc. It will be of some highly schismatic sect that due to having the view of one's place of birth (or other bodily designation) worshippable is incapable of dealing in a non-confrontational manner even with those who subscribe to the same ideology.

IOW even if you say you have become one of whatever they say they apparently are and you aren't, they will still take your property anyway, just like the bank does on properties with defaulted mortgages.

The question is whether I am guilty before God for defending my (mental or material) property when a theist (of whichever religion) comes to take it away from me in the name of God.


In your religion, there is the instruction to cut out the tongues of blasphemers, for example.
Although devotees generally do not act on this instruction, suppose one would: So if such a devotee would show up at my door, threatening me with a knife and seeking to attack me, and I would flee or defend myself: Would I infringe on his right to cut my tongue out and make myself guilty before God for resisting His devotee?

 

[lightgigantic]

You seem to be working on the assumption that no religion in particular is the right one / superior to all others - and that thus, it makes no difference if a person claims to be killing in the name of God.

I made it clear from the onset that killing in the name of god is as absurd as illuminating the sun with a solar powered torch

Most people in this thread are not making this assumption, but instead assume that a particular religion is the right one, the superior one - and so members of that religion would be justified to kill in the name of God (and that those to be killed need to refrain from resisting those religionists).

Kind of like the contention between the french and the british arising from them both killing in the name of colonialism?

I was using a general term, as I don't know which religion is the right one.

well if you used a specific term we could more accurately assess the probability of it - for instance if one is talking of killing in the name of british colonialism one can attribute it to specific populations in specific geographical regions during specific time eras. Talking of killing in the name of colonialism is simply too general to warrant discussion. Its not so much a question whether colonialism is right or wrong but whether a particular nation is powerful enough to establish it that sets it in the running (for instance its kind of difficult to play contemporary Tonga as a colonial power).

The question is whether I am guilty before God for defending my (mental or material) property when a theist (of whichever religion) comes to take it away from me in the name of God.

Its kind of difficult to play mental and material property as the same ball game. Even in terms of mundane law, debate (ie attacking other's mental property) is not a crime (... in fact stifling debate can be a crime in some instances) however damage and theft of property is).

In your religion, there is the instruction to cut out the tongues of blasphemers, for example.
Although devotees generally do not act on this instruction, suppose one would:

Generally they don't?
Can you find even one historical instance where one has?

I guess its kind of like being told to go jump off a cliff. Although people generally don't act on such instruction, suppose one would:

So if such a devotee would show up at my door, threatening me with a knife and seeking to attack me, and I would flee or defend myself: Would I infringe on his right to cut my tongue out and make myself guilty before God for resisting His devotee?

If a person jumps of a cliff because someone told them to "jump off a cliff" I would think they are easily impressionable and not very sharp.

 

[wynn]

I made it clear from the onset that killing in the name of god is as absurd as illuminating the sun with a solar powered torch

Then you are very optimistic!

It seems that you believe that everyone is part and parcel of God and that God wants every living being to be happy and that there is no eternal damnation.
That's optimistic!

Most religions disagree with you on this, of course.

Kind of like the contention between the french and the british arising from them both killing in the name of colonialism?

No, the issue of killing in the name of God is unique and has no adequate analogy in the material world.

Its kind of difficult to play mental and material property as the same ball game. Even in terms of mundane law, debate (ie attacking other's mental property) is not a crime (... in fact stifling debate can be a crime in some instances) however damage and theft of property is).

Indeed. But if you have ever been psychologically manipulated by someone, you know what I am referring to here, and how painful this is.

Generally they don't?
Can you find even one historical instance where one has?

Like the ones in N.V. where eventually the FBI went undercover to investigate, criminal charges were filed and people put to prison.

And then the ordinary shunning and isolating of those who do not seem to fit in even though they have not overtly broken any rules. It is very violent.

I guess its kind of like being told to go jump off a cliff. Although people generally don't act on such instruction, suppose one would:

I do not think it is like this.

Like I said, the issue of killing in the name of God is unique and has no adequate analogy in the material world.

 

[NMSquirrel]

You seem to be working on the assumption that no religion in particular is the right one / superior to all others - and that thus, it makes no difference if a person claims to be killing in the name of God.

Most people in this thread are not making this assumption, but instead assume that a particular religion is the right one, the superior one - and so members of that religion would be justified to kill in the name of God (and that those to be killed need to refrain from resisting those religionists).

um..i don't think i need to rehash my opinion on this..
do i?
i seriously doubt God wants a world full of clones.

In your religion, there is the instruction to cut out the tongues of blasphemers, for example.

LG has a good point when he equates jumping off a cliff..
it is the other side of the coin..if God told you to kill yourself would you?

 

[wynn]

if God told you to kill yourself would you?

Duh. If I would be sure it was God who is speaking, what choice would I have?

 

[Enmos]

Duh. If I would be sure it was God who is speaking, what choice would I have?

How could you ever be sure? I mean, given gods nature.. if it has one.

 

[wynn]

I think NMS' question is silly.
I think it is also part of a very common line of reasoning.

 

[Enmos]

I think NMS' question is silly.
I think it is also part of a very common line of reasoning.

In any case, I would not even consider doing it. If it really is god and it wants me dead, it can do it itself. I'm not going to help it.
Using 'it' just sounds too damn silly. I'm reverting back to 'him'..

 

[wynn]

If it really is god and it wants me dead, it can do it itself. I'm not going to help it.

Exactly.
If God really wanted to vacate Canaan for the Israelites - surely a little blow of His breath would suffice, no? No need for the Israelites to go and slaughter them, and then feel divinely justified for doing so.

 

[Enmos]

Exactly.
If God really wanted to vacate Canaan for the Israelites - surely a little blow of His breath would suffice, no? No need for the Israelites to go and slaughter them, and then feel divinely justified for doing so.

Even better, god could have prevented them being in exile.
In fact, he did nothing to prevent that and yet he pulled out all the stops in order to have the Egyptians release them. What's up with that?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Duh. If I would be sure it was God who is speaking, what choice would I have?

and there is my point about God not showing proof of himself..
to do so would turn ppl into slaves.

Exactly.
If God really wanted to vacate Canaan for the Israelites - surely a little blow of His breath would suffice, no? No need for the Israelites to go and slaughter them, and then feel divinely justified for doing so.

now you are back to my point of if God wanted someone dead he would drop a rock on them..

(why was my question silly?)

 

[wynn]

Even better, god could have prevented them being in exile.
In fact, he did nothing to prevent that and yet he pulled out all the stops in order to have the Egyptians release them. What's up with that?

Yes! If they would indeed be such God's chosen people, why didn't He just take them up to heaven to be with Him already? Why this charade on earth then?
I mean, if they really are God's chosen people, it's not like they need to learn or experience anything on earth anymore, they are already qualified for heaven!

 

[Enmos]

Yes! If they would indeed be such God's chosen people, why didn't He just take them up to heaven to be with Him already? Why this charade on earth then?
I mean, if they really are God's chosen people, it's not like they need to learn or experience anything on earth anymore, they are already qualified for heaven!

The whole thing is nonsensical. So perhaps you shouldn't be bothering yourself with it too much

 

[wynn]

and there is my point about God not showing proof of himself..
to do so would turn ppl into slaves.

?

I think this is one very strange line of reasoning you have there.

(why was my question silly?)

Address the above and I'll answer.

 

[NMSquirrel]

?
I think this is one very strange line of reasoning you have there.
Address the above and I'll answer.

If God were to show proof of his existence how many would take the attitude of not doing anything unless he tells them to?
you keep asking about the 'right' religion..
it is the same concept.

some ppl do not want to take responsibility for their own faith, they want someone else to tell them what to do, what to believe, that way if they are wrong they can blame whoever told them to do that,believe that.

If God were to show up and start telling ppl what to do, then ppl would not take responsibility for their own actions, they would just wait until God told them to.
then if anything went wrong the excuse would be 'because he told me to' not 'because it is the right thing to do'.

the best parallel i can think of is in the work environment, when you have a boss that actually knows what he is doing and is considered the expert, how many ppl get lazy and goto him for answers instead of trying to figure it out for themselves..
i would think this line also works for the anal boss who yells at ppl to 'do as they are told' irregardless of any benefits of 'thinking for oneself',they train ppl to go to them and ask them what to do instead of the employee taking the initiative and doing it themselves before they are told.

alot of the navajo ppl here in this are are like that, they are afraid to do things for themselves they have to ask the boss what/how to do something..
i think this is cause most of the boss's in this area are more like the latter example above.

 

[wynn]

If God were to show proof of his existence how many would take the attitude of not doing anything unless he tells them to?

None.


Do you really believe statements like -

If you were left to yourself, you would sit on the sofa, watch tv and eat chips all day.
You won't act unless you force and beat yourself into action.
By nature, you are bad.
If you don't force yourself, you won't get anything done.
The only way to get anything done is by forcing yourself.
If you didn't force yourself, you didn't get anything done.

-?

I don't. I do think that God did not give us lazy, uncaring, dull natures.
It even says in the Bible that we were "created with the spirit of power" or something like that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then you are very optimistic!

It seems that you believe that everyone is part and parcel of God and that God wants every living being to be happy and that there is no eternal damnation.
That's optimistic!

Most religions disagree with you on this, of course.

I don't see what that has to do with the notion that god requires the use of people to achieve his goals or the sun has a requirement of solar powered torches in order to make its self visible.

No, the issue of killing in the name of God is unique and has no adequate analogy in the material world.

The analogy is how the discussion becomes meaningless unless we assign established categories. For instance a discussion of "Does Colonialism extend cultural tropes" only becomes meaningful when we start citing actual colonial powers : eg French, British, or even Tongian if you want to distinguish colonialism from mere immigration or whatever.

Indeed. But if you have ever been psychologically manipulated by someone, you know what I am referring to here, and how painful this is.

Psychological manipulation is again not the same thing as having one's ideas challenged.

Like the ones in N.V. where eventually the FBI went undercover to investigate, criminal charges were filed and people put to prison.

Notice how the victim was technically a theist? (On a side note the nature of his "blasphemy" was threatening to go to the IRS).

It fits in with what I said earlier about the act being performed by some splinter group that can't even reach a consensus amongst themselves, what to speak if one tries to become one of them in order top keep the peace.

And then the ordinary shunning and isolating of those who do not seem to fit in even though they have not overtly broken any rules. It is very violent.

So we have gone from "what if a theist demands my land?" to "what if a theist ignores me?"

I do not think it is like this.

Like I said, the issue of killing in the name of God is unique and has no adequate analogy in the material world.

Killing in the name of god (as opposed to killing in the name of occupational duty) is as unique as illuminating the sun with a solar powered torch (ie what to speak of both having no requirement for it, both empower it) or jumping off a cliff because some one told to you (performed by easily impressionable persons who are not too sharp)

 

[Pineal]

and there is my point about God not showing proof of himself..
to do so would turn ppl into slaves.

I have to agree with Signal's problem with this idea. This would mean that people who right now believe in God are closer to being slaves than people who do not believe in God. Especially if the God they believe in has written scripture with a lot of rules. The OT comes to mind.

Your idea would mean that their doubt is a good thing.

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

How would knowing make me a slave? I could know that god exists but still rebel against his rule, critique his methods and reasoning, even go into complete denial about it. The only thing it would prevent me from doing is honestly maintaining ambiguity on the subject. We can no longer honestly maintain any ambiguity about the theory of evolution, does that make us slaves to evolution?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Do you really believe statements like -

If you were left to yourself, you would sit on the sofa, watch tv and eat chips all day.
You won't act unless you force and beat yourself into action.
By nature, you are bad.
If you don't force yourself, you won't get anything done.
The only way to get anything done is by forcing yourself.
If you didn't force yourself, you didn't get anything done.

-?

who said that?
(this is me..cept for the bad part, and chips give me reflux bad..)

I don't. I do think that God did not give us lazy, uncaring, dull natures.
It even says in the Bible that we were "created with the spirit of power" or something like that.

i am not speaking to the ideal..i am speaking to the reality of it.. Michelangelo's painting sums it up..

--------

I have to agree with Signal's problem with this idea. This would mean that people who right now believe in God are closer to being slaves than people who do not believe in God. Especially if the God they believe in has written scripture with a lot of rules. The OT comes to mind.

Your idea would mean that their doubt is a good thing.

but most ppl in religion ARE like that..they run to their pastors for every little problem in their lives for the pastor can tell them what to do, (since he is supposed to speak for God..)

look at this and keep the idea of 'which is the right religion' in mind..why is it so important to find the 'right' religion?
why can't ppl take responsibility for their own beliefs?
why does there have to be a 'right 'religion?

-----

@NM --

How would knowing make me a slave? I could know that god exists but still rebel against his rule, critique his methods and reasoning, even go into complete denial about it.

see..i believe this to be true.he gave us the ability to choose. i don't believe he would want us to be slaves,he gave us the ability to choose,why would he want to take it away?
which is why i believe he should not 'show' himself in the sense that most atheist want him to.

but i also believe in human nature and the easier path of 'doing as your told' (most ppl..not all)
(i think i may be confusing the issue..so many thoughts trying to be heard all at once..)

you would make a good believer Arioch..(at least in my opinion..not religions)
Test all things and hold on to what is good.(at least i see you testing..dunno about the holding part for you yet..)

The only thing it would prevent me from doing is honestly maintaining ambiguity on the subject. We can no longer honestly maintain any ambiguity about the theory of evolution, does that make us slaves to evolution?

evolution does not have the stigma of obedience attached to it.
main stream Religion does..IE Believe or go to hell.