OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments, by Greg Koukl

[Trout]

Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments? by Gregory Koukl

www.str.org


If you want to call moral rules absolutes in the sense that they can never be trumped, then that is probably too strong a definition and not a Biblical definition. And if you are not careful, it makes God subject to His own rules in a way that puts the rules above God instead of God above the rules.

If it is immoral for us to kill people, why is it okay for God to kill people? Doesn't God keep His own commandments? And if He doesn't keep His own commandments, then what does it mean to call such commandments an absolute when God Himself doesn't have to keep them? And, if they are not absolutes, then why do we have to keep them? Then one begins to wonder, maybe God's rules are not necessary, they are just things He cooks up for us that apply to us and mess up our fun. This is a tact that people take in raising this particular issue. So, how are we to take the commandments seriously?

The first thing in answering the objection is to make sure we understand exactly what the commandment says. "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a misquote. The commandment isn't against killing; it's against murder. Just as in English, the Hebrew language has two different words; and the word murder is what is described in the commandment, not killing. It should be fairly evident to people that God is not proscribing all killing because part of the very Mosaic law that God gave capitol punishment as an appropriate punishment for quite a number of crimes. You can't say, I forbid you to kill, and by the way, kill. That would be an obvious contradiction, and that is obviously not what God has in mind. No, the prohibition is against murder, which is an inappropriate kind of killing. And then God talks about certain circumstances when killing is legitimate and other circumstances when it is not legitimate. Taking a human life without proper justification is murder and is wrong. But if the circumstance changes and there is appropriate justification, then arguably this is a morally relevant factor that changes the moral nature of the act of taking a life. Therefore, you would be justified in taking his life in self-defense. When the circumstance changes in a morally relevant way, the application of the moral rule changes.

The question is, does the circumstance change in a morally relevant way when God is the subject in view? To kind of clarify that, I could ask a question: What is your most prized possession? Say it's a mountain bike. Okay, if you owned your mountain bike is it okay if you disassemble it and spread it around? If it's yours it would be okay. I can do what I want with my own things. But what if someone else did that to your bike? Well, that would be wrong because someone else doesn't have the liberty to do that with something that is not their own. Yet, you being the owner of that thing do have the liberty to do whatever you want with what is yours.

I think that is the same principle that informs this question about God. God tells us that we should not kill other human beings. Why shouldn't we? You see a clear picture of the rationale against murder in Genesis 9 right after the flood. We see God prohibiting the shedding of man's blood. There is the metaphor for murder. The way God puts it is this: "When man sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed for [here is the rationale] in the image of God, God created man." God is saying, You kill another human being and other human beings can kill you because when you kill another human being you are killing someone who is made in my image. There is a factor that is morally relevant to the circumstance: the factor of ownership. This factor is a morally relevant distinction that makes a different moral rule applies there.

Why is murder wrong? According to Genesis 9 the reason that murder is wrong is you are destroying something of God's, something that bears His nameplate - His image. You destroy another human being and you will be punished for destroying God's property.

Can God destroy God's property? The answer seems to be yes. You see, God is the King of the universe. He is King of the universe not because He is the most powerful, and not by some arbitrary rule, but because He created it and it belongs to Him from the beginning. God can do what He wants with His universe. If He chooses to give life, He can give it. If He chooses to take life, He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of His own property.

While I was reading the Scriptures this morning, in the Gospels Jesus is giving the parable of the landowner who had hired different people at different times of the day, but paid them all the same thing. The landowner paid the guy who came in last at 4 o'clock the same as the guy who came in early in the morning. The guy who came in first was upset. Here is what Jesus said, speaking as the landowner, Can't I do what I want with that which is mine? We had an agreement and I paid you what we agreed. Now, if I want to give my money away to somebody else for less work, it's my money. Can't I do what I want with my own money?

I think the principle applies here, too. The universe is God's, and if He wants to take life, He can do so. I'm not saying He doesn't have reasons, but I'm saying He doesn't have to give reasons because it is fully within His purview to do as He wishes.

By the way, we have an intuition that informs us. I have been drawing on this intuition by giving parallels. There is an argument that people have offered against capitol punishment that I actually don't think works, but it turns out to draw on the same intuition. The part that draws on this intuition I think is accurate. One thing critics say about capitol punishment is that we shouldn't kill other human beings through capitol punishment because "we shouldn't play God." That is, we ought not be doing the kind of thing that is God's prerogative but not ours. I certainly agree with the principle that we ought not to do things that are only God's prerogative, but not ours. I don't think that principle applies in the circumstance of capitol punishment because, as far as I can tell, God Himself is the one that gave the application for governments to use capitol punishment to punish people under certain circumstances. So, there is a delegated authority there. But notice the intuition. It is appropriate for God to do what He wants with is His own. We shouldn't play God, but is it appropriate for God to play God because He is God. That is, He can do the things that only God should be doing. And in this line of thinking, only God should be taking life. That implies that God has the legitimacy to take life when He wants. As I said, if He takes the life of one individual or millions of individuals through some large-scale judgment, that certainly is His prerogative.

The simple answer is, no, God does not have to keep all the Ten Commandments. In fact, it is hard to imagine how many of them even apply to Him. Does God have to keep the Sabbath? Does God have to dedicate a portion of His week to the Lord? No, that's for His subjects, not for the King. Should God not have any other Gods before Him? That's kind of ludicrous. It doesn't apply. He doesn't have to honor His parents. He doesn't have parents. What about coveting? Thou shall not covet. What is coveting? Isn't it desiring something that is not your own? Is it possible for God to covet? What is there that is not properly His? Nothing, therefore God can't covet. The Ten Commandments are an expression of God's desire and in many ways an expression of His character, but they are expressions of His character that have a certain application to human beings who are His subjects and the rules do not apply to Him in the same way.

The question that is raised here is the question of absolutes. Then those rules aren't absolutes. If what you mean by the word absolute is that there is a rule that is somehow fixed in heaven and applies to everything under heaven by its own force and there are no exemptions or exceptions to the rule, and everything and everyone and everybody must bow to the rule, including God for it to be an absolute, well, then there aren't any absolutes like that. I think that is an abuse of the word. No, I think an absolute isn't the kind of thing that never is exempted, but is an objective moral rule that has to do with a circumstance and is always applicable in those circumstances applied in the same way. But when the morally relevant circumstance is changed, like you go from man to God as the players, then it may not be that that objective principle applies in these other circumstances.

That is why I avoid the word absolute in my discussion of these issues. An absolute is seen by many in an extreme way when, in fact, what we have in the Scripture are objective moral principles that are staggered in their significance, but some are more important that others. This is clear from things that Jesus said and from other teachings in the Scripture. There are greater goods and lesser goods. Sometimes you are stuck in what is called a moral dilemma and you have to do one thing or another, both of which are wrong. You must either protect human life and lie or hand over the innocent life to be killed. It happened to Corrie ten Boom and she chose to lie to protect Jews from the Nazis. In so doing, she did not do something wrong. She didn't do the lesser of two evils in my view. She did the greater of two goods. Therefore, lying in that circumstance was even morally obligatory. There are two instances in the Bible where we see exactly the same thing, the Egyptian mid-wives protecting the Hebrew newborns and Rahab protecting the Jewish spies. These people are even praised for what they did.

If you want to call moral rules absolutes in the sense that they can never be trumped, then that is probably too strong a definition and not a Biblical definition. And if you are not careful, it makes God subject to His own rules in a way that puts the rules above God instead of God above the rules.

-=-=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For more articles like this, please visit our friends at www.str.org


Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Trout]

:bump:

[Glenn P]

That is why I avoid the word absolute in my discussion of these issues. An absolute is seen by many in an extreme way when, in fact, what we have in the Scripture are objective moral principles that are staggered in their significance, but some are more important that others. This is clear from things that Jesus said and from other teachings in the Scripture. There are greater goods and lesser goods. Sometimes you are stuck in what is called a moral dilemma and you have to do one thing or another, both of which are wrong. You must either protect human life and lie or hand over the innocent life to be killed. It happened to Corrie ten Boom and she chose to lie to protect Jews from the Nazis. In so doing, she did not do something wrong. She didn't do the lesser of two evils in my view. She did the greater of two goods.The two bolded parts contradict, as best I can tell.

[technomage]

Well ... they do contradict on an absolute scale. The point Koukl is making is that though Corrie Ten Boom did lie, her lies saved lives.

I'm not sure I agree with the logic, but even were I Christian, I could not bring myself to condemn her. Fortunately, if I were Christian, such judgements would be "above my pay grade."

[Glenn P]

They really do contradict at every level. he claimed that in a dilemma like this, you are doing something wrong no matter which option you choose. Corrie chose one option, and Koukl says she did something wrong. I see absolutely no way around it.

1) There are moral dilemmas, wherein if you choose either option, you are doing something wrong.
2) Corrie Ten Boom chose one option in a moral dilemma.

3) But Corrie Ten boom did nothing wrong.

Sorry, at least one of these statements absolutely must be false. I think it's the first statement.

[technomage]

That's one way to look at it--frankly, I'm not sure how else one can classify a choice between lying and handing over an innocent person to die.

[Philosophickle]

Graded absolutism says that even though in and of itself lying is wrong, there are situations when wrong is the right choice.

[Glenn P]

I fully understand that What Koukl is doing is presenting a hierarchy of duties. I understand that in graded absolutism, some duties are higher than others.

But when lying becomes a duty, it becomes the right thing to do. In fact a duty just is the right thing to do, and not wrong. This means that it was a mistake to say that in such a dilemma, either choice involves doing something wrong. In this case, the choice is between doing something objectively right (lying), and something objectively wrong (letting the Jews die). The correct thing to say would have been that in a dilemma it is often the case that we must do something that would be wrong in many circumstances.

Remember: There is no scenario in which you ought to do something that is wrong. (Wrong = "that which you ought not do.")

[technomage]

But when lying becomes a duty, it becomes the right thing to do.

From a Christian point of view, I must point out that the Bible is mostly silent on such situations. Admittedly, there is no condemnation of Rahab (for lying to hide the spies) or even of Rahab (who lied to hide her theft of Laban's household idols), and one must also acknowldge that Christian tradition has long indicated that unless the Bible explicitly speaks against something, one is free to follow one's conscience. (ref Rom 14:5, 23)

But there are many--Christian and non-Christian--who use a strict absolute standard, rather than a "graded absolute" or the pragmatic ethics you seem to be advocating. WhileI certainly see the point of your posts, I think Greg's lesson is still workable for those who use an absolute scale.

[YoungOne]

I like it :)

[Glenn P]

From a Christian point of view, I must point out that the Bible is mostly silent on such situations. Admittedly, there is no condemnation of Rahab (for lying to hide the spies) or even of Rahab (who lied to hide her theft of Laban's household idols), and one must also acknowldge that Christian tradition has long indicated that unless the Bible explicitly speaks against something, one is free to follow one's conscience. (ref Rom 14:5, 23)

But there are many--Christian and non-Christian--who use a strict absolute standard, rather than a "graded absolute" or the pragmatic ethics you seem to be advocating. WhileI certainly see the point of your posts, I think Greg's lesson is still workable for those who use an absolute scale.Well, I don't mean to put forward a "pragmatic" approach. I just mean there is nothing that it is a duty to do and which it is wrong to do, for that is a contradiction. I guess it means that I don't believe layig is always wrong. Koukl believes that too, so i was just nit picking at his claim that a dillemma requires us to do something wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with Greg's conclusion. Not intentionally, anyway.

[technomage]

Well, I don't mean to put forward a "pragmatic" approach. I just mean there is nothing that it is a duty to do and which it is wrong to do, for that is a contradiction. I guess it means that I don't believe layig is always wrong. Koukl believes that too, so i was just nit picking at his claim that a dillemma requires us to do something wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with Greg's conclusion. Not intentionally, anyway.
I do agree that Greg could have stated that part of the argument more clearly. :smile:

[Sparko]

nice article. I am surprised wyzaard and minnesota are not in here since they seem to post on this sort of thing a lot.

[JonLanceBarker]

they were scared out of their skivvies by the sheer logic of the article. :hehe:

[Glenn P]

Well, I don't mean to put forward a "pragmatic" approach. I just mean there is nothing that it is a duty to do and which it is wrong to do, for that is a contradiction. I guess it means that I don't believe layig is always wrong. Koukl believes that too, so i was just nit picking at his claim that a dillemma requires us to do something wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with Greg's conclusion. Not intentionally, anyway.


layig..... :shocked:

[JonLanceBarker]

yes, there is that. :hehe:
we all know you meant lying, Jack Calvin...it's ok. :teeth:

[casaba]

Just on the subject of the 'logicians' not showing up for discussion: When the issue of lying "to protect Jews from the Nazis" during WWII is presented as a "moral dilemma", I can see why most reasonable people stay away.

[Glenn P]

I'm not a logician? I feel slighted....

[Trout]

:bump:

[JonLanceBarker]

Just on the subject of the 'logicians' not showing up for discussion: When the issue of lying "to protect Jews from the Nazis" during WWII is presented as a "moral dilemma", I can see why most reasonable people stay away.

when you say "logicians," are you referring to Minnie and Whizzer?
:rofl:


and frankly, i'm not sure what you're trying to say. :huh: is it that moral dilemmas aren't fit conversation material for their lot?

[Kelp]

and frankly, i'm not sure what you're trying to say. :huh: is it that moral dilemmas aren't fit conversation material for their lot?
I believe what he's saying is that the whole way that morality is discussed in philosophical contexts is silly and foolish and that any reasonable person does not participate.

[JonLanceBarker]

I believe what he's saying is that the whole way that morality is discussed in philosophical contexts is silly and foolish and that any reasonable person does not participate.

now why would he say that? :hrm:

[casaba]

now why would he say that? :hrm:

The time that Christians, particularly those of a Conservative flavor, spend deciding how absolute an absolute god can be, is astounding. I actually agree with Koukl's point that absolute morals do not exist; unfortunately, I don't know if he agrees with it. Call me a relativist (as if that were a bad word), but is seems intuitively obvious that claiming "Lying is bad" as an absolute is anything but ridiculous. I guess Koukl simply chose the most obvious example to say this same thing. My problem the Nazi reference was simply in calling it a moral dilemma; a dilemma for me is something that requires thought before coming to a solution. The case he presented requires no thought; any dilemma would arise from the thought of self preservation, which I suspect would--and should--come well before any 'guilt' of having told a lie.

[Glenn P]

I think Koukl should have spoken of moral duties as being "qualified," rather than denying that they are "absolute." Denying that they are absolute can lead some (like casaba) to make the error of thinking that this means they are not objective, and that relativism (yes, it is a bad thing) is the way to go.

[casaba]

I think Koukl should have spoken of moral duties as being "qualified," rather than denying that they are "absolute." Denying that they are absolute can lead some (like casaba) to make the error of thinking that this means they are not objective, and that relativism (yes, it is a bad thing) is the way to go.
emphasis added

Thank you for your absolute opinion. Duly noted.

[Glenn P]

Well I hope it is noted. It's important tor realise here that "qualified" does not mean the same as "non-absolute." In fact that's an objective fact. Also objectively true is that had Koukl argued this way, there would be no room for the claim that his comments lead tor relativism.

Those things are facts. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not he would have been correct.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well I hope it is noted. It's important tor realise here that "qualified" does not mean the same as "non-absolute." In fact that's an objective fact. Also objectively true is that had Koukl argued this way, there would be no room for the claim that his comments lead tor relativism.

Those things are facts. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not he would have been correct.

In his Relativism book, Koukl does argue in that way.

[The Pixie]

The question is, does the circumstance change in a morally relevant way when God is the subject in view? To kind of clarify that, I could ask a question: What is your most prized possession? Say it's a mountain bike. Okay, if you owned your mountain bike is it okay if you disassemble it and spread it around? If it's yours it would be okay. I can do what I want with my own things. But what if someone else did that to your bike? Well, that would be wrong because someone else doesn't have the liberty to do that with something that is not their own. Yet, you being the owner of that thing do have the liberty to do whatever you want with what is yours.
I think my most prized possessions are my children. Is it okay for me to disassemble them and spread them around? I think not. I suggest it is different when you are considering intelligent beings; you do not have the liberty to do whatever the heck you want to another living thing, whether you own it or not. Indeed, I personally find the idea of owning another intelligent being to be morally wong.

[Kelp]

I think my most prized possessions are my children.


I personally find the idea of owning another intelligent being to be morally wong.

Greetings,

How is there not a contradictionn between those two statements?

[The King]

Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments? by Gregory Koukl
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually a misquote. The commandment isn't against killing; it's against murder. Just as in English, the Hebrew language has two different words; and the word murder is what is described in the commandment, not killing. It should be fairly evident to people that God is not proscribing all killing because part of the very Mosaic law that God gave capitol [sic] punishment as an appropriate punishment for quite a number of crimes. You can't say, I forbid you to kill, and by the way, kill. That would be an obvious contradiction, and that is obviously not what God has in mind. No, the prohibition is against murder, which is an inappropriate kind of killing.

"Thou shalt not kill" is not a "misquote."

The Hebrew text says lo tirtsach, which can refer either to killing (mere homicide) or murder (a form of culpable homicide). While there are other words for "kill" and "murder" in Hebrew, the term ratsach can refer to either. What is determinative for the meaning of the term ratsach is the context, but there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to culpable homicide. In fact, Deut 4:42 refers to somebody who unintentionally kills (yirtsach) another person, using the same Hebrew word. You cannot have an unintentional "murder" by definition. So the term ratsach is clearly not itself restricted to culpable homicide.

The King

[Glenn P]

"Thou shalt not kill" is not a "misquote."

The Hebrew text says lo tirtsach, which can refer either to killing (mere homicide) or murder (a form of culpable homicide). While there are other words for "kill" and "murder" in Hebrew, the term ratsach can refer to either. What is determinative for the meaning of the term ratsach is the context, but there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to culpable homicide. In fact, Deut 4:42 refers to somebody who unintentionally kills (yirtsach) another person, using the same Hebrew word. You cannot have an unintentional "murder" by definition. So the term ratsach is clearly not itself restricted to culpable homicide.

The King
Quite right. "Thou shalt not kill" is entirely accurate. Like all commands, I take it to be a prima facie injunction, along the lines of "unless I make an exception, don't kill." Otherwise the penalty of death for murder would look pretty strange!

[The Pixie]

Hi Kelp

Sorry, I posted here, and then forgot all about it.

How is there not a contradictionn between those two statements?
Well of course there is. That is point, really. God thinks of us as his possessions, and that gives him the right to kill, torture, etc. My children are not my possessions (though they are prized!), they are independant thinking entities and it would be morally wrong for me to consider them my possessions and to act in that manner. Just as God's children, you and me, are independant thinking entities and it would therefore be morally wrong for Him to consider us as possessions. The analogy to owning a bike misses the mark for exactly this reason. Bikes are not independant thinking entities; if it is yours, do with it as you like.

Let us push the analogy in to science fiction. If you created a robot capable of intelligent thought, a true artificial intelligence, would that give you the right to cause it pain when you felt like it, to destroy it when it bored you? Or would it give you the responsibility to look after it?

[Sparko]

Hi Kelp

Sorry, I posted here, and then forgot all about it.

Well of course there is. That is point, really. God thinks of us as his possessions, and that gives him the right to kill, torture, etc. My children are not my possessions (though they are prized!), they are independant thinking entities and it would be morally wrong for me to consider them my possessions and to act in that manner. Just as God's children, you and me, are independant thinking entities and it would therefore be morally wrong for Him to consider us as possessions. The analogy to owning a bike misses the mark for exactly this reason. Bikes are not independant thinking entities; if it is yours, do with it as you like.

Let us push the analogy in to science fiction. If you created a robot capable of intelligent thought, a true artificial intelligence, would that give you the right to cause it pain when you felt like it, to destroy it when it bored you? Or would it give you the responsibility to look after it?

If it ran amuk would you have the responsibility to stop it by any means?

[The Pixie]

If it ran amuk would you have the responsibility to stop it by any means?
No, not by any mean, any more than if a child runs amok with a bunch of guns. Killing the robot or the kid with the guns may be a last resort if there is no other way to protect the innocent. But that is the point; you would do it (1) to protect the innocent, when (2) you have no alternative. It would be wrong to destroy the robot in a massive explosion that also killed everyone in the area. It would be wrong to destroy the wicked in a global flood that also drowned the innocent. Killing the robot or the child or the wicked without protecting the innocent would be wrong. And it would be wrong to kill the robot or the child or the wicked if, say, you were omnipotent, and could stop it another way.

[Sparko]

No, not by any mean, any more than if a child runs amok with a bunch of guns. Killing the robot or the kid with the guns may be a last resort if there is no other way to protect the innocent. But that is the point; you would do it (1) to protect the innocent, when (2) you have no alternative. It would be wrong to destroy the robot in a massive explosion that also killed everyone in the area. It would be wrong to destroy the wicked in a global flood that also drowned the innocent. Killing the robot or the child or the wicked without protecting the innocent would be wrong. And it would be wrong to kill the robot or the child or the wicked if, say, you were omnipotent, and could stop it another way.

well sin does harm others and can't be allowed to infect the eternal state (paradise, heaven, or whatever you want to call it) so God has the responsibility to eliminate it or keep it seperate, just like we have the responsibility to keep criminals out of our society. And as you piont out, it would be wrong for God to destroy them completely after giving them life, so he puts them in a prison forever to keep them away from his "society" - and he calls that prison "hell"

[The Pixie]

well sin does harm others and can't be allowed to infect the eternal state (paradise, heaven, or whatever you want to call it) so God has the responsibility to eliminate it or keep it seperate, just like we have the responsibility to keep criminals out of our society. And as you piont out, it would be wrong for God to destroy them completely after giving them life, so he puts them in a prison forever to keep them away from his "society" - and he calls that prison "hell"
Personally, I have a problem with giving infinite torture for a finite amount of sin.

Also, I cannot help but notice that God waits a while, sometimes for decades, before acting to stop a sinner. If what you say is true, then God has a responsibility to remove (i.e., kill and send to hell) sinners as soon as they sin. As you say, society has an analogous responsibility to keep criminals locked away, and (I assume) to do so at the earliest possible moment.

It just does not make sense to me. If God wants to keep sin reduced, he would kill sinners. That was the point of the previous exchange surely. Instead of a robot running amok, you have humans sinning. Last time you seemed to be arguing that it was acceptable to destroy the robot that is running amok (and so by analogy, to kill the sinning human) to protect the innocent. Now you seem to have turned 180 degrees, and you are suggesting we show let the human sinner live to old age, and then torture him for eternity (and so by analogy, let the robot kill hundreds of innocent people, but when its powerunit is exhausted, program it to feel agony for ever more), and who give a hoot about the innocents who suffer.

[Sparko]

Personally, I have a problem with giving infinite torture for a finite amount of sin.
the bible never says hell is torture. It says torment. torment can be mental or physical but it connotes more in the way of anguish than pain. Separation from God will be anguish because they will know that they rejected the one true God.


Also, I cannot help but notice that God waits a while, sometimes for decades, before acting to stop a sinner. If what you say is true, then God has a responsibility to remove (i.e., kill and send to hell) sinners as soon as they sin. As you say, society has an analogous responsibility to keep criminals locked away, and (I assume) to do so at the earliest possible moment.
God doesn't take out his punishment on us now, but later. Now he is giving us time for repentence and salvation. Life is like a proving field. You can make your choice to follow God and live forever in paradise, or reject him and live separate from him for eternity. If God were to stop all sin NOW, the world would be empty.


t just does not make sense to me. If God wants to keep sin reduced, he would kill sinners. That was the point of the previous exchange surely. Instead of a robot running amok, you have humans sinning. Last time you seemed to be arguing that it was acceptable to destroy the robot that is running amok (and so by analogy, to kill the sinning human) to protect the innocent. Now you seem to have turned 180 degrees, and you are suggesting we show let the human sinner live to old age, and then torture him for eternity (and so by analogy, let the robot kill hundreds of innocent people, but when its powerunit is exhausted, program it to feel agony for ever more), and who give a hoot about the innocents who suffer.

The robot is not running around killing innocents here and now, but is one among a bunch of robots running amuk. The creator is weeding out the ones who choose to be "fixed" from those who insist on running amuk. Those that he saves will eventually end up in paradise and the rest shuttled off to a place where they can run amuk all they want.

[The Pixie]

<blockquote>the bible never says hell is torture. It says torment. torment can be mental or physical but it connotes more in the way of anguish than pain. Separation from God will be anguish because they will know that they rejected the one true God.</blockquote>
Sorry, you have lost me. How is deliberately inflicting mental torment (or anguish) not a form of torture? How can deliberately inflicting mental torment for eternity be justified for finite sin?
<blockquote>God doesn't take out his punishment on us now, but later. Now he is giving us time for repentence and salvation. Life is like a proving field. You can make your choice to follow God and live forever in paradise, or reject him and live separate from him for eternity. If God were to stop all sin NOW, the world would be empty.</blockquote>
So this is completely unrelated to the morality of destroying the robot running to protect the innocent.
<blockquote>The robot is not running around killing innocents here and now, but is one among a bunch of robots running amuk. The creator is weeding out the ones who choose to be "fixed" from those who insist on running amuk. Those that he saves will eventually end up in paradise and the rest shuttled off to a place where they can run amuk all they want. </blockquote>
Ah, then I misunderstood your original point. You said: "If it ran amuk would you have the responsibility to stop it by any means?" I guess what you meant was "If it ran amok would you have the responsibility (or right perhaps?) to punish it for eterntity, having allowed it to do whatever damage in its natural lifetime?" I think the answer is: Absolutely not.

[Sparko]

the bible never says hell is torture. It says torment. torment can be mental or physical but it connotes more in the way of anguish than pain. Separation from God will be anguish because they will know that they rejected the one true God.
Sorry, you have lost me. How is deliberately inflicting mental torment (or anguish) not a form of torture? How can deliberately inflicting mental torment for eternity be justified for finite sin?
are you just trying to burn straw? How about reading what I say instead? The anguish is caused by being separated from God, by their own choices. It is self inflicted.



God doesn't take out his punishment on us now, but later. Now he is giving us time for repentence and salvation. Life is like a proving field. You can make your choice to follow God and live forever in paradise, or reject him and live separate from him for eternity. If God were to stop all sin NOW, the world would be empty.
So this is completely unrelated to the morality of destroying the robot running to protect the innocent.

More straw. The "innocent" in the analogy is comparable to the people in heaven. God's society. This world HAS no innocents. we are all running amuk


The robot is not running around killing innocents here and now, but is one among a bunch of robots running amuk. The creator is weeding out the ones who choose to be "fixed" from those who insist on running amuk. Those that he saves will eventually end up in paradise and the rest shuttled off to a place where they can run amuk all they want.
Ah, then I misunderstood your original point. You said: "If it ran amuk would you have the responsibility to stop it by any means?" I guess what you meant was "If it ran amok would you have the responsibility (or right perhaps?) to punish it for eterntity, having allowed it to do whatever damage in its natural lifetime?" I think the answer is: Absolutely not. What would you do if you had a bunch of robots running amuk and you wanted to protect your perfect society?

[The Pixie]

The anguish is caused by being separated from God, by their own choices. It is self inflicted.[quote]
What? God set up the system. It was his choice: (1) whether people are allowed to sin; (2) whether they go to hell; and (3) what hell is like. I think that gives him at least some of the responsibility.

If I dig a hole on the road outside my house and someone falls down the hole, is he to blame for falling down the hole? Or am I to blame for digging the hole in the first place?
[quote]More straw.
Is it at all possible you did not explain your position that well? Did you consider that before accusing me of "just trying to burn straw"? I am guessing no.

The "innocent" in the analogy is comparable to the people in heaven. God's society. This world HAS no innocents. we are all running amuk
If this world has no innocents, how does anyone make it to heaven?

What would you do if you had a bunch of robots running amuk and you wanted to protect your perfect society?
... And I was responsible for building those robots? I would build a fence around the perfect society (perfect because it has a population of zero, perhap?). Then I set about trying to fix the robots. God tried to "fix the robots" in a global flood designed to move virtually all of them to hell to suffer mental torment for ever more. Personally, I think that was morally wrong.

But this is the "firefighting" approach; reacting to the immediate problem of the moment. Let us suppose some forethought in our analogy (God is omniscient, afterall). What would you do if you wanted to design a bunch of robots, but you could foresee them running amuk and you wanted to protect the perfect society that you also were designing? Well, I think I would hold up on building those robots...

So I guess our moral questions now are:
* Is it moral to build a bunch of thinking, feeling robots in the certain knowledge that they will run amok?
* Is it moral to build a punishment system where robots that run amok for a finite amount of time will then suffer an eternity of mental torment?
* Is it moral to build a bunch of thinking, feeling robots in the certain knowledge that they will run amok, and will then suffer an eternity of mental torment?
More philosophical than moral:
* Is it a perfect society if certain individuals are denied it?

[Sparko]

The anguish is caused by being separated from God, by their own choices. It is self inflicted.
What? God set up the system. It was his choice: (1) whether people are allowed to sin; (2) whether they go to hell; and (3) what hell is like. I think that gives him at least some of the responsibility.

God gave us free will, we chose to sin. he did not make us do it.



If I dig a hole on the road outside my house and someone falls down the hole, is he to blame for falling down the hole?

He is if he dug the hole and then fell in. thats what we did.


Is it at all possible you did not explain your position that well? Did you consider that before accusing me of "just trying to burn straw"? I am guessing no.
From reading your post I am replying to, I am believing you are not interested in discussion at all but trying to play "trip up the christian" or some such game. Its a huge rabbit trail.




If this world has no innocents, how does anyone make it to heaven?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

[The Pixie]

God gave us free will, we chose to sin. he did not make us do it.
He gave us the capability to sin. He gave us the opportunity to sin. He chose that those who sin will suffer eternal anguish. How can you absolve God of all responsibility?

I am not saying God is solely responsible. Just as with the robot that runs amok, if the robot is truly intelligent/sentient then it is partly responsible. But the designer of a robot that runs amok is also partly responsible.

Pix: If I dig a hole on the road outside my house and someone falls down the hole, is he to blame for falling down the hole?

Sparko: He is if he dug the hole and then fell in. thats what we did.
Sorry, I suppose I was not clear enough. No, he did not dig the hole, I did. I dug the hole, he fell down it. If I dug the hole that he fell down, am I at least partly responsible?

From reading your post I am replying to, I am believing you are not interested in discussion at all but trying to play "trip up the christian" or some such game. Its a huge rabbit trail.
I originally joined this discussion because I objected to how the auther of the OP considered intelligent beings to be analogous to a mountain bike with regards to how we can treat our possessions. That was certainly not a "huge rabbit trail" to "trip up the christian". It was a legimate objection to a logical flaw, and as yet no one has offered counter.

Since then I have tried to address your posts as well as I can, sarting with this comment: "If it ran amuk would you have the responsibility to stop it by any means?" It is interesting how you seem to have completely abandoned the position implied in that comment.

Are you concerned that you will be tripped up? If your religion makes sense, and you have a proper understanding of it, and you answer thoughtfully and carefully, why should you trip up? The great thing about an internet discussion is that you have time to consider your replies carefully, to research the data and the arguments other people have used. On the other hand, if your religion does not make sense, or if your understanding of it is poor, or if you are not prepared to spend some effort in your responses, I would advice you not get involved in these discussions.

Pix: If this world has no innocents, how does anyone make it to heaven?

Sparko: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
So when a baby dies (say as a result of a global flood) does she go to heaven or hell?

[Sparko]

He gave us the capability to sin. He gave us the opportunity to sin. He chose that those who sin will suffer eternal anguish. How can you absolve God of all responsibility?

I am not saying God is solely responsible. Just as with the robot that runs amok, if the robot is truly intelligent/sentient then it is partly responsible. But the designer of a robot that runs amok is also partly responsible.
the alternative would be to create people with no free will, I suppose you think that would be the better choice?


Sorry, I suppose I was not clear enough. No, he did not dig the hole, I did. I dug the hole, he fell down it. If I dug the hole that he fell down, am I at least partly responsible?

I understood what you said, I am saying that God did not dig the hole. He just told adam to stay away from the tool shed. Eve and Adam broke into the tool shed, dug the hole and jumped right on in. and you want to blame God for that.

[The Pixie]

the alternative would be to create people with no free will, I suppose you think that would be the better choice?
Really? How do you know that? Is it really beyond God's ability to create "robots" that have free will but do not run amok?

Is there free will in heaven?

Does the risk of eternal mental torment even justify giving people free will?

I understood what you said, I am saying that God did not dig the hole. He just told adam to stay away from the tool shed. Eve and Adam broke into the tool shed, dug the hole and jumped right on in. and you want to blame God for that.
I want to partly blame God, sure. He could have put the Trees of Knowledge and Life on a planet in another solar system. He chose to put them in plain view of Adam and Eve, and was then "surprised" when they took a bit. Only he was not surprised. He is all-knowing, so he set up the Trees and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the certain knowledge that they would disobey and taste the forbidden fruit.

In what sense is it morally right to punish all living things for countless generations for the actions of three individuals?

By the way, did you know God lied about the fruit, and the snake told the truth?

[Sparko]

Really? How do you know that? Is it really beyond God's ability to create "robots" that have free will but do not run amok?
If you have no way to choose to do wrong do you really have free will?


Is there free will in heaven?heaven is where those who already choose to submit their will to God will be. It is a WILLING submission. quite different from a forced submission.


Does the risk of eternal mental torment even justify giving people free will?

apparently to God it does.


I want to partly blame God, sure.
I can tell.



He could have put the Trees of Knowledge and Life on a planet in another solar system. He chose to put them in plain view of Adam and Eve, and was then "surprised" when they took a bit. Only he was not surprised. He is all-knowing, so he set up the Trees and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the certain knowledge that they would disobey and taste the forbidden fruit.

Perhaps it was all part of his plan. He did know they would fall and eat the fruit. He is God after all, but that in no way makes him the one who caused Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do it themselves. They could have just as easily NOT chosen to eat the fruit and obey God.




In what sense is it morally right to punish all living things for countless generations for the actions of three individuals?
The punishment you talk about is letting us have our own way to do whatever we wish. We can spit in God's face or turn our lives around and submit them to him. Its YOUR choice.


By the way, did you know God lied about the fruit, and the snake told the truth?

God didn't lie. Adam and Eve lost their immortality that very day. They started dying physically and were dead spiritually at the point they ate the fruit.

[The Pixie]

If you have no way to choose to do wrong do you really have free will?
If you can choose between doing good one way or doing good another way, then yes, you have free will. I think i have free will when I am deciding what I want for breakfast. Do you believe you only have free will when you are deciding between right and wrong?

Pix: Is there free will in heaven?

Sparko: heaven is where those who already choose to submit their will to God will be. It is a WILLING submission. quite different from a forced submission.
Okay, so heaven is this really great place, but you can only go their if you give up your free will (if I understand you right; the alternative is that heaven combines free will without the choice of evil, which contradicts your earlier point).

Do you personally think it is a good thing to have free will? Assuming you go to heaven for eternity, you will have had free will for an infinitesimal fraction of your life/afterlife.

Pix: Does the risk of eternal mental torment even justify giving people free will?

Sparko: apparently to God it does.
Do you agree with that? Do you assume it must be right if God does or can you make independant moral judgements?

Perhaps it was all part of his plan. He did know they would fall and eat the fruit. He is God after all, but that in no way makes him the one who caused Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do it themselves. They could have just as easily NOT chosen to eat the fruit and obey God.
Absolutely. And God could have chosen not to put the fruit where they could eat. I think they would still have had free will if those two Trees were inaccessible.

God knew exactly what he was doing, exactly what the consequences were for humanity for generations to come. Adam and Eve presumably had little understanding of right or wrong, having not eaten from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong at that point. How can you possibly absolve God of all blame?

Pix: In what sense is it morally right to punish all living things for countless generations for the actions of three individuals?

Sparko: The punishment you talk about is letting us have our own way to do whatever we wish. We can spit in God's face or turn our lives around and submit them to him. Its YOUR choice.
No, the punishment I am talking about is:

[i]Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
The punishment I am talking about is The Fall, a punishment that has afflicted every living thing since then. We can spit in God's face or we can turn to him. Either way, we still get punished for what two naive people did 6000 years ago. Personally, I find that morally abhorant.

God didn't lie. Adam and Eve lost their immortality that very day. They started dying physically and were dead spiritually at the point they ate the fruit.
Well, admittedly, I have never looked at the ancient Hebrew, but here is the English translation:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Adam and Eve did not die on the day that they ate the fruit. They went on to live long lives, raising a family. Remember also:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
This verse implies that without eating of the tree of life, Adam and Eve would not live forever. They were never immortal. Eating the forbidden fruit did not make them mortal; they already were.