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

[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]

[quote]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?

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.