Am I more moral than God?

A man wakes up in the morning. He is slightly deranged, harboring a great deal of anger mixed with a base of psychosis. He picks up his handgun, and places his rifle into the trunk.

He pulls into the school parking lot with the intent of killing young children.

I choose to stop him.
God allows him to kill over twenty children and several adults.

Who is more moral?

 

The guy that tells the story teller to see someone for that psychosis, of making up stories that have no merit in a religion & philosophy section of the forum.

 

HE has to watch it happen and do nothing....otherwise it "violates Free Will" (apparently more sacrosanct to God than stopping the murder of children).

YOU stop the slaughter...."violating" the man's Free Will. By one interpretation of standard dogma...YOU are doing "Evil", while GOD doing nothing is doing "Good".


Here's another one. Two Leaders of a large group. The group was harassed by an enemy force in the past.

One Leader orders an offensive against the enemy force...but mercifully commands the troops to spare the lives of non-combatents, women, and children.

The Other Leader orders an offensive against the enemy force....and orders the entire MASSACRE of the enemy group, plus non-combantents including the women AND their children, even babies.

Who is more moral?


"2. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”----1 Samuel 15:2-3

 

Address the question or refrain from posting.

- - - Updated - - -

More fun: Allowing Lanza to murder over twenty people violates the free will of each person.

Would the lesser of two evils not be to violate the supposed free will of one person?

Oops. Christian contradiction #1,456.

 

I got some flak for posting this same question right after Newtown and it's always the same nonsense from theists. There was a girl (can't remember her name now and actually there have been countless cases of this but this one in particular lasted for over 20 years) held prisoner by a man who kept her in his basement and raped and sodomized her several times a day and then even did it to the girls that were born from those rapes for years after that.

So how does this work? Because God will not interfere with this man’s free will he must allow this man to completely rob this girl of hers and then watch for decades as she is victimized in the most barbaric of ways and then watch some more as the children born from this rape receive the same fate?

Was God expecting this man to see the error of his ways at some point during this? And if he did would he forgive him for his sins? Is it really ok for this woman and these girls to go through all of this just because they will go to heaven later? And what if they committed sins themselves as behavioral victims of this brutality would God consider them agents of their own free will and send them to hell?

 

More fun:

After committing these crimes the man gives himself to Jeeezzzuuuussssss and is a born again Christian condemning his previous acts. The women experiencing this terror become atheists (for good reason).

Who goes to heaven? Who goes to hell?

Christianic immorality #886.

 

I remember Hitchens talking about that scenario during a debate with four theists. Almost worse, to me, is the idea that the children produced in that scenario could die before being rescued, having never known of any religion at all, and the Christians who believe in original sin will say those children will burn in hell since they never confessed or accepted Jesus as their savior. It's abhorrent.

 

So you would have us all be robots who have no choice but to do the right thing in every circumstance?

Is a robot capable of love?

No.

There can be good in man if the opposite is not possible.

 

not bad .....

 

Aren't you a moral relativist?

 

It's very strange that you seem to think the only possible options are for us to be robots or for god to refrain from interfering when horrible people do horrible things (yet apparently interfere when good people need help, unless that would somehow interfere with the aforementioned horrible person's misdeeds).

 

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord...Psalm 33:12
The Lord is no longer the God of this nation, we have turned our back on him a long time ago, we drag his Holy name through the mud, we mock him and take great joy in breaking his comandments. and then you expect Him to serve us? We have just begun to feel the wrath of the Lord and we deserve every bit of it. Its called Revelations, you should read it some time.

 

Being that you aren't omniscient,what if you moved this question back a few years and one of those children was Hitler and a couple of them his future hench men ? I mean, it's not like this question is new.lol

 

I don't tend to read much fiction.

AboveAlpha

 

"Only help people when they aren't disappointing you" is an interesting stance to take. Not particularly moral, though.

 

Maybe the children would have grown up to have all been mass murderers themselves. Therefore the guy who killed them was doing a greater good than the person did who saved them. Since no one knows the future how can anyone ever claim that what he's doing is really ultimately moral? People generally do what they think is right at the time they do it but their actions may be completely wrong in the long-term. We hope for the best and let the future take care of itself.

 

The Bible doesn't say to help everyone. It says to know whom you're helping and not to help sinners.

 

That's fine. I'm not sure what that has to do with the point of my post, unless you're agreeing that the Bible isn't a good moral guide.

 

What are the best 12 moral principles that you are aware of?

 

Irrelevant to the point. But since you asked, I'm aware of two (both paraphrased): don't treat others in a way that you would not choose for yourself, and my rights end at the next man's nose.

 

OK, since the first one is found in the Bible you rely upon the Bible for 50% of your moral views.

 

The golden rule didn't originate with the Bible. That particular phrasing is from Confucius, and is probably older than him. Nice try, though. Even if that idea did originate with the Bible, it wouldn't make it a moral book since there are large sections of it that clearly ignore the rule.

 

You were wise to limit your response to just two items. If you had listed 12 you would have shown that you rely upon the Bible for your sense of morality.

 

Again, that would have nothing to do with whether the Bible is actually a good moral guide or not.

 

Are there actually such things as good and bad morality?