Does God have the right to kill?

Originally posted by galveston75
"Well ok but first you have to give me an example of when God did as you say as I'm not aware he's ever done that?"

I asked this of LJ but might as well as all here who believe god is cruel and evil with killing. Could you please post some specific examples as to when he did such an unjust thing?

I think I posted pretty comprehensively on I Samuel 15.

So can you explain the justification for killing infants in this scenario? I am only interested in the killing of the infants by the way, not the adults (nor the donkeys).

Originally posted by galveston75
Well sorry it doesn't make sence either.
And how does one make one believe in a God and his works and the wisdom behind them if that person probably does not want to? Do you just not want to believe in a God or is there more to it?

Do you just not want to believe in a God or is there more to it?

Gee, I thought you were the architect of this thread. As such, you should already know that we are assuming hypothetically that the God as contained in some sufficiently literal interpretation of a personal creator exists...so that is already settled for the scope and purpose of this discussion. So, this discussion has nothing to do with belief in Him or desire thereof: this discussion already assumes He exists and then asks a further question regarding what rights such a being may or may not possess. Again, you should already know this. So, completely understandably, I am asking you for reasons that you think justify your stance with respect to that further question...after all that request is directly relevant to the question you purport to address in starting this thread, right? Look, if you don't want to actually provide reasons for your position, then don't start threads that purport to initiate considered debate on the topic. Simple, right?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well ok but first you have to give me an example of when God did as you say as I'm not aware he's ever done that?

Have you even read the Old Testament? One cannot seriously hold such a work to be intended hyper-literally and to be taken as inerrant and then pretend like God does not sanction genocide. Here is a link to a paper that argues those lines with plenty of discussion regarding specific examples. Basically, the paper argues that one of these two has to give: (1) the view that the OT is intended literally and is inerrant (2) the view that the God contained therein did not sanction genocide. Please read through it and let me know your thoughts...deal?

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/DidGodCommandGenocide.pdf

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is S and X?

The Instructor

Seriously?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
First let's define right...
[quote]
1.in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time. [ ...[text shortened]... s I said, he has the right to do as he pleases, even if it is beyond yours and my understanding.

Well, that is some definition of 'right', but that's not a working definition of a right. Regardless, further wordsmithing is not important here. We can go with this if you want….

When God ends a life he is doing what is right, good, the right solution, correct in judgement, etc. Who are you to argue with him? Truth, purity, righteousness, all come from God. So as I said, he has the right to do as he pleases, even if it is beyond yours and my understanding.

Well, that is just question-begging, now isn't it? It would be one thing if you actually had some argument by way of substantive reasons that justify what you say here; but you apparently missed the memo that one is supposed to argue for his position in such a discussion. It seems a lot of persons missed the memo here...even the thread founder.

If not just question-begging, what you state is rather circular reasoning. "Truth, purity, righteousness all come from God…so whatever God does is right, including when He does stuff that appears morally deplorable to us…we must just be too dense to understand the actual reasons why such divine actions are praiseworthy." Oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up for everyone. 🙄🙄

Originally posted by KellyJay
You understand the meaning behind the word, "sovereign" if not I suggest you look it up.
Kelly

Again, KJ, the point of this thread was to initiate debate concerning the further question, supposing that He exists, of whether or not God would have the right to treat his creatures in certain fashions or just basically any old way He pleases. Again, you do not just get to assert that God has such a right…for the last time, that's called begging the question. It doesn't mean you're wrong, necessarily, but it means I have no reasons to take you seriously…because you offer me none.

Regardless, you're also confused if you think just creating something ipso facto gives one sovereign authority over that thing. Moreover, just having "sovereign" right or something like unlimited power does not settle anything here…the question would still go to establishing a sort of legitimacy. There is such a thing as tyranny, for example, and there is such a thing as abuse of one's power.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I think I posted pretty comprehensively on I Samuel 15.

So can you explain the justification for killing infants in this scenario? I am only interested in the killing of the infants by the way, not the adults (nor the donkeys).

Well it is important to me to know if I'm wasting my time on answering you. I simply wanted to know first if you believed in a God and if not why not. I thought a simply yes or know would have worked.
So anyway am I going to waste my time? Is this because you really want an answer or just here to argue?
My time is valuable too....

Originally posted by galveston75
Well it is important to me to know if I'm wasting my time on answering you. I simply wanted to know first if you believed in a God and if not why not. I thought a simply yes or know would have worked.
So anyway am I going to waste my time? Is this because you really want an answer or just here to argue?
My time is valuable too....

Galveston, I haven't looked through the whole thread, but do you think God has the "right to kill"?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well it is important to me to know if I'm wasting my time on answering you. I simply wanted to know first if you believed in a God and if not why not. I thought a simply yes or know would have worked.
So anyway am I going to waste my time? Is this because you really want an answer or just here to argue?
My time is valuable too....

I think you asked that question to LemonJello, not me.

If I am mistaken, can you post where you asked me this, as I obviously missed it.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well it is important to me to know if I'm wasting my time on answering you. I simply wanted to know first if you believed in a God and if not why not. I thought a simply yes or know would have worked.
So anyway am I going to waste my time? Is this because you really want an answer or just here to argue?
My time is valuable too....

I assume this was intended for me, not Rank outsider. Apologies up front if that is not the case.

I simply wanted to know first if you believed in a God and if not why not. I thought a simply yes or know would have worked.

Actually, what you asked me was "And how does one make one believe in a God and his works and the wisdom behind them if that person probably does not want to? Do you just not want to believe in a God or is there more to it?"

This is not a simple yes-no inquiry into whether or not I believe in a God and follow-up with why or why not; and it is frankly just disingenuous on your part to suggest otherwise. It's a pair of loaded questions with rhetoric to the effect that I possess affective states toward the question of God's existence that somehow negatively impact my ability to entertain this thread topic objectively. But what a bizarre thing for you to imply, especially given that I have written nothing to prompt or warrant it; and especially given that this discussion is in the vein of a hypothetical where we ask, supposing that God exists, what sorts of rights He may hold. I mean, you started the discussion, remember? So it's baffling that you would struggle with this point.

Again, if you feel that it's a "waste" of your valuable time when others ask for justification for your position within the bounds of a discussion that you yourself initiated, then do not presume to start such a discussion in the first place.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, that is some definition of 'right', but that's not a working definition of a right. Regardless, further wordsmithing is not important here. We can go with this if you want….

[quote]When God ends a life he is doing what is right, good, the right solution, correct in judgement, etc. Who are you to argue with him? Truth, purity, righteous ...[text shortened]... such divine actions are praiseworthy." Oh, ok, thanks for clearing that up for everyone. 🙄🙄

[Uninvited intoning alert]

Hey, LJ.
Your position assumes a separate standard against which an agent's behavior is determined either in concert or against the grain.

While God is, indeed, an agent, it is His character and person which inform us what is right, good, truth and purity. No one else within or without the universe holds such a distinction, so it is admittedly unique.

But to consider Him separate from one (or any or all) of His characteristics, is to consider the watch irrespective of time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[Uninvited intoning alert]

Hey, LJ.
Your position assumes a separate standard against which an agent's behavior is determined either in concert or against the grain.

While God is, indeed, an agent, it is His character and person which inform us what is right, good, truth and purity. No one else within or without the universe holds such a distinctio ...[text shortened]... from one (or any or all) of His characteristics, is to consider the watch irrespective of time.

Hi Freaky.

Your position assumes a separate standard against which an agent's behavior is determined either in concert or against the grain.

No, there is no 'position' of mine in the post to which you are replying which assumes any such thing. In that post, I was informing KJ that it is bad form in a debate to simply import in a presupposition about the very topic under debate. In his commentary throughout this thread, he simply states as presupposition that God has the sort of right under issue; but whether or not God would hold such a right, given that He is the personal creator of us, is exactly what is supposed to be under debate. So, his commentary is question-begging.

The rest of my commentary there also does not assume what you state here, either...not that I fully understand to what "a separate standard against which an agent's behavior is determined either in concert or against the grain" would refer.

While God is, indeed, an agent, it is His character and person which inform us what is right, good, truth and purity. No one else within or without the universe holds such a distinction, so it is admittedly unique.

If you want to claim that God's actions must be right just in virtue of God's character being definitive of what is right; then okay, but I have no idea why anyone would find that satisfactory. That is just a stipulative, arbitrary and subjectivist view of what counts as right. And, unfortunately, in the case of God's sanctioning genocide and whatnot (which He clearly does under literal interpretation of your divine accounts), it doesn't even square with our most basic moral intuitions about what is right and hence probably fails as an ethical program at all. I mean, what use is a standard or definition of justice and rightness that fails to even accord with our most basic intuitions on the subject? The OT clearly shows your God at various times as petty, jealous, vindictive, genocidal, infanticidal, etc, etc. If these are supposedly simply partially definitive of moral rightness, then why are you not endeavoring to press them into your own services? It's bizarre that you claim God's character is simply definitive of justice and rightness and the like; and yet will have to claim on the other hand that we're so dumb as to be fooled into thinking that His righteous actions sometimes seem incredibly vicious and just plain stupid. It's bizarre that you claim that God's character is simply definitive of the good; and yet you will not be able to claim He functions as a moral exemplar because His ways are often incomprehensible to you and you could never bring yourself to enter His own often-bizarre-looking methods into your service.

As you probably know, whatever theory of the good one has, it will inevitably "bottom out" some place where that person will have to a "free" normative premise. Yours, apparently, is to say that some entity -- who in your own divine accounts often appears to us as a malign thug -- has a character that is simply definitive of goodness. Not only is that incredibly arbitrary and absent any actual substance for any moral enquirer who is looking for practical reasons; but it doesn't even square remotely with very basic moral intuition. Why not bottom out in something that we can actually care about, like fundamental concerns of humans or sentient beings? Instead you bottom out in a being who sanctions genocide and the like; and then you have to contort your position further by saying that we as moral enquirers can accurately label genocide as directed by Hitler as evil...but are somehow too dense to understand the value of genocide as directed by God...as if genocide could be valuable. It's all a bit ridiculous if you ask me....

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Unusually helpful post from you, confirming that there really is no such thing as 'New Atheism'.

Correct. The younger atheists are just presenting new ways to spread their beliefs.

The Instructor

Originally posted by LemonJello
Again, KJ, the point of this thread was to initiate debate concerning the further question, supposing that He exists, of whether or not God would have the right to treat his creatures in certain fashions or just basically any old way He pleases. Again, you do not just get to assert that God has such a right…for the last time, that's called begging the qu ...[text shortened]... here is such a thing as tyranny, for example, and there is such a thing as abuse of one's power.

A sovereign ruler is just, sovereign, and if he is good or bad is not part
of the discussion, it is what it is. God is good, but that is not the question
that was asked, it is does God have the right to kill, and as a sovereign
ruler He does without a doubt. I don't see why you feel I'm confused,
I've answered the question, you are the one worried about why it is
a good idea or bad.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A sovereign ruler is just, sovereign, and if he is good or bad is not part
of the discussion, it is what it is. God is good, but that is not the question
that was asked, it is does God have the right to kill, and as a sovereign
ruler He does without a doubt. I don't see why you feel I'm confused,
I've answered the question, you are the one worried about why it is
a good idea or bad.
Kelly

Actually, that wasn't the question that was asked.

The OP says:

This subject comes up from time to time with many comments about God taking life in the past of seemingly innocent ones. I know some here express anger and even hatred to a God that would do this.

Any thoughts as to why he did this and could still possibly do it again?

I admit that the title of the OP could have been better chosen, but the subject for debate is fairly clear. It is asking for a justification and/or explanation as to why God kills innocent people.

So far, your answer, and the answers given by most posters, can be summarised as 'God can do whatever he likes because he is God, he has the power to do this and no-one can stop him.'

LemonJello and I are arguing that this is not a valid justification and does not give God the right to behave in this way. It is also, to my mind, inexplicable behaviour for an omnipotent being, and I can offer no justification for it whatsover.

LemonJello posted:

Apparently, if an earthling sanctions genocide, then that earthling must be evil; but when God does it, then it must be the case that God has some justifying reason that confounds us....Would you mind outlining in more detail how I should go about telling the difference between blameworthy genocidal behaviors and praiseworthy ones, for example?

galveston75 claimed that he was not aware of any examples of genocidal behaviour and so I have offered up the example of I Samuel 15 though, as LJ says, there are plenty of others.

My position is that there is no conceivable justification for this action involving the slaughter of babies, God did not have the right to do this, and that this action was evil.

If your answer is still 'God can do whatever he wants.......' then you have to explain how you would go about distinguishing between a benign supernatural entity and a malevolent supernatural entity or, as I more colourfully put it, how do you know that the instruction to kill the Amalekite children did not come from Satan in disguise?