Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If you truly loved someone, and realized that the life they're living right now is going to allow them to go to Heaven, wouldn't the correct thing to do be to kill them now to ensure Heaven rather than chance any corruption that could occur down the line? +EV of infinity while staying alive could be -infinite EV. Funny, how all these movies and people try to protect their loved ones at all costs from dying! I always knew the right move is always the least likely one!

[/ QUOTE ]
Within Christianity, the moral act (ie the correct thing to do) is the one sanctioned by God. God says dont murder so you shouldnt murder - even if you believe murdering is +EV as you put it.

It has nothing to do with yourself getting into heaven.
It has nothing to do with EV.
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if you look at the big picture (i.e. beyond God's desires) then the ultimate selfless act is too humanely put down as many innocents as possible.

And once you've started, there's no reason to stop.

If this sounds nutty, chalk it up to a messy loophole in Christian philosophy.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moral, correct, right course of action is to obey God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if you look at the big picture (i.e. beyond God's desires) then the ultimate selfless act is too humanely put down as many innocents as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people who believe in hell would say there is nothing "bigger picture" than God's desires. Those desires define what is good and bad. You may call it selfless to murder innocents but it is immoral (and shouldnt be done) by definition if it goes against God's wishes.

[bunny]

The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people who believe in hell would say there is nothing "bigger picture" than God's desires. Those desires define what is good and bad. You may call it selfless to murder innocents but it is immoral (and shouldnt be done) by definition if it goes against God's wishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't change the fact that there is a bigger picture, one that would suggest that the person who did this would be the most selfless individual in the history of existence, bar none (and I mean <u>none</u>).

And it would be profoundly moral, IMHO, if it were only possible that he could be justifiably certain that he was right.

[godofgamblers]

Yeah Silent A got my point. You're under no obligation to follow the bible since you'd be doing it for others, not for yourself. You could be doing the wrong thing in the greater scheme of things but you're guaranteeing those you love eternal paradise. You are being completely selfless.

In one sense, it is ultimate EV. Once you've completed one murder and have guaranteed yourself hell, you're on a freeroll to be sending more people to heaven at no cost!

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should there be a "Christian" who doesn't believe in hell?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people who believe in hell would say there is nothing "bigger picture" than God's desires. Those desires define what is good and bad. You may call it selfless to murder innocents but it is immoral (and shouldnt be done) by definition if it goes against God's wishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't change the fact that there is a bigger picture, one that would suggest that the person who did this would be the most selfless individual in the history of existence, bar none (and I mean <u>none</u>).

[/ QUOTE ]
My only point is that the believer would dispute this. There is no bigger picture, which provides a completely legitimate reason for them not acting counter to God's instructions.

[ QUOTE ]
And it would be profoundly moral, IMHO, if it were only possible that he could be justifiably certain that he was right.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would (I suspect) believe that morality is subjective or a question of opinion. For a believer there is no opinion involved other than God's. He says dont do it so (to them) it is immoral to do it - even if it results in reduced suffering.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Silent A got my point. You're under no obligation to follow the bible since you'd be doing it for others, not for yourself. You could be doing the wrong thing in the greater scheme of things but you're guaranteeing those you love eternal paradise. You are being completely selfless.

In one sense, it is ultimate EV. Once you've completed one murder and have guaranteed yourself hell, you're on a freeroll to be sending more people to heaven at no cost!

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand the argument. The point I am clearly failing to make is that you believe it to be a moral act (assuming that is implied by selfless and "ultimate EV"). But you dont believe hell is real. The people who believe hell is real do not accept your definitions of morality.

If you believed in hell and also believed one should act to minimise suffering, then your conclusion may follow (I think there are other more dubious counter arguments, but leaving them aside). The point is, the people we are discussing dont believe both of those things. They believe in hell and that one should act according to God's wishes.

EDIT: Another way of trying to say the same thing. In the quote above you said someone was under no obligation to follow the bible if they were doing it for others and not for themselves. Someone who believes in hell is not going to believe this. They will say you have to follow the bible, irrespective of the consequences.

Your argument makes sense to someone with a morality determined by the perceived or expected consequences. There are people who think consequences dont matter - what matters is following the rules.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument is obvious, but it relies on a definition of morality (ie on what the correct course of action is) based on maximising happiness or some such. Most christians (particularly those who believe in hell) dont think this is the right way to determine what is moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should there be a "Christian" who doesn't believe in hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
I call myself a christian but I dont believe in hell (eternal suffering doesnt fit in well with the loving god I believe in). I think everyone is saved.

Given the dominance of americans here, I am happy to accept that I may not be a christian from the point of view of this board - in Australia and more specifically in the church I attend I am regarded as a christian (although admittedly the various ministers I know think I have a strange and probably flawed way of looking at things).