Magus55

Apparently you don't know the definition of murder.

Magus55

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.


Human wisdom is foolish to God. Why do think Jesus called us sheep? Because sheep are dumb and foolish compared to God. Your basis for judging God is worthless. You don't have the authority, nor the wisdom to do so.

SignOfTheCross

Hey, I don't claim to be an apologist. St Augustine taught God's immutability, other than that I don't know much about it.

Peace,
SOTC

EGGO

"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight." Psalms 5:5

I know there's more behind it, I just feel like having a little fun for now.

winstonjen

And he still knows lots more than you.

To attract New Zealanders?

In that case, your basis of judging him to be Oh-So-Perfect is ALSO baseless. The Babble does not count.

scumble

Unfortunately, you only believe this to be true, which in turn leads you to believe that you can't understand the truth, and you think you're better off than someone who doesn't believe it?

Hawkingfan

Ah, the Christian obsession with Ad Hoc excuses...sigh...

Wyz_sub10

I, for one, would be quite interested in your definition of murder.

Magus55

The unlawful killing of another human being with malice.

First, God created the law and enforces it, therefore His actions aren't unlawful. ( Its legal for the government to execute people).

God isn't a human, killing another human, He is a supreme, sovereign being executing judgement on sinful humans.

And, God doesn't kill with malice.


God is not a murderer by human definition.

Wyz_sub10

Okay. Let's say I am a hitman for the government. They commission me to kill a protester that has become too influential.

This killing is not unlawful.
This killing is without malice.

Is it murder?

That is true, but as I questioned above, does the ability to set the law equate to a justifiable action? (i.e. does might make right?)

If one argues that god is beyond contestation, then one must address the possible discord between "can" and "should".

For example: 1) god is always just. 2) god can order people to kill other people 3) therefore, that act becomes a just act.

The "act" itself, therefore, becomes completely devoid of morality because it is not the act that has any value, but the one who commands it.

IOW, murder, theft, regret, gambling, consolation, love, killing, feeding....none of these have any moral value - only whatever moral value god decides to assign to them, temporarily, not in any absolute quantity, but through the decisions he makes at that time.

I'm tempted to get into a discussion on why god just doesn't "remove" who needs to be removed, rather than have other humans wage bloody, horrific and socially damaging campaigns of war. (sounds like a big "sky godfather" commanding his yet-to-be-"made" family).

But to stick to the point...god still takes lives, and I think we can agree on that much. If one compares the amount of lives god has allegedly taken to those taken by others, its clear that he has the lion's share.

Now, you will argue that his killings are just while others are not. But there is a problem with this. Being killed in violent fashion is certainly an unplesant (often needlessly so) way to go. Not to mention that when we kill people, it seldom stems from flawless reasoning.

But god has unlimited tools at his disposal, and supposedly flawless reaning (i.e. should not be swayed by emotion). It is difficult to reconcile, therefore, gods methods of execution with what we are taught to believe about his nature.

Also, if the act itself has no moral value, then how do we separate actual killings sanctioned by god, and killings allegedly santioned by god?

If morality is established by god as he sees fit, how do you know that someone claiming god told him to kill 25 schoolchildren is not telling the truth?

Surely there is some intuitive reason for you to doubt this claim. What is it?



Whether true or not, this condition is irrelevant. The intention means more than the feelings that motivate the action.

I can kill in self-defense, and still have a heart filled with malice. Or I can kill in cold blood, but free of malice.

(BTW, 2 points: malice is not a necessary condition of murder, god absolutely kills with malice, unless your definition of malice differs from mine)

If the definition is human, then god is subject to however that definition evolves.

I would maintain that god, according to the human definition, is absolutely guilty of murder.

For one, humans in western civilization are strongly supportive of a trial by one's peers. Non of god's victims are ever awarded such a trial.

(I'm not looking to discuss god's need to be judged, simply that if you are going to apply human definitions for murder, it is logically to follow through with human responses to these actions)