Told To Kill By God

story

A texas mother has been aquitted of murdering her children because the jury found that she was insane at the time. The defense was that God told her to do it.

I am reminded of Abraham & Isaac.

This raises a question. If someone can be classified insane for following "Gods orders" does it mean that the same goes for following other orders from God that don't involve doing bad things as far as the law goes.?
If someone says "God told me to be moral and help others" we accept that and don't view that person as insane.....if they said "God told me to sacrifice my children"........insane
i am as many of you know, a doubter of Gods existance but i don't deny that he could exist. This is not about the existance of God, nor is it designed to offend those that believe. It is about how we see Gods orders in everyday life and how we accept them and indeed "what" we accept.
Personally i feel that the woman just wanted to get away with the terrible thing she did and the "god" bit was just a desperate attempt at doing so....it kind of worked as the jury (which heard the case, whereas i did not) aquitted her

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg



http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/jonestown.jpg

IN MY OPINION (so as not to be declared a self proclaimed expert by vidcc)

It really depends on what actions the person takes and whether they do it because of a religious belief, or because God actually spoke to them.

If someone lives a good life, based on their belief in a God and what he want so f us then that is surely a good thing and not insane.

If they hear God's voice in their head, they may indeed have psychological problems and in fact be hallucinating. On the other hand if God is actually speaking to them, then they are perfectly sane.

I don't think God tells people to murder, therefore the person did not hear God's voice, therefore they are lying or have psychological problems.

Incidentally , I think it's Metatron who does most of the actual talking. I belief he was the Gaffer Arch-Angel and one of the Seraphim, but I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@4 April 2004 - 23:04


Incidentally , I think it's Metatron who does most of the actual talking. I belief he was the Gaffer Arch-Angel and one of the Seraphim, but I could be wrong.

---

Isn't he the one pulled into the Abyss by Lord Asriel and Mrs Coulter?????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sara5564+4 April 2004 - 23:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sara5564 @ 4 April 2004 - 23:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@4 April 2004 - 23:04


Incidentally , I think it&#39;s Metatron who does most of the actual talking. I belief he was the Gaffer Arch-Angel and one of the Seraphim, but I could be wrong.

---

Isn&#39;t he the one pulled into the Abyss by Lord Asriel and Mrs Coulter????? [/b][/quote]
I am not even remotely familiar with Phillip Pullmans work, so I cannot comment on this one.

I was more thinking of

http://www.drjoshuadavidstone.com/metatron.jpg

I think she should have been fried in the chair.

The jurors had watched to much Frailty.

I think it highlights how irrelevant God is when it comes to defining moral behavior.

The religious might justify the act by saying that "God has a higher purpose" and we may not understand why he chose to kill in this case, and therefore; his desire was fulfilled.

Quite seriously, whether it is too kill or behave "morally" based on the word of an unknowable God, defined by man, there is no difference. It is all based in something which cannot be proven nor questioned, an absolute leap into the abyss with no safety net.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@4 April 2004 - 18:29
I think it highlights how irrelevant God is when it comes to defining moral behavior.

The religious might justify the act by saying that "God has a higher purpose" and we may not understand why he chose to kill in this case, and therefore; his desire was fulfilled.

Quite seriously, whether it is too kill or behave "morally" based on the word of an unknowable God, defined by man, there is no difference. It is all based in something which cannot be proven nor questioned, an absolute leap into the abyss with no safety net.

---

I just think God was a scapegoat.

An example of religion helping to define morals is marriage.

What&#39;s to stop me from slamming another man&#39;s wife if the oppurtinity presents itself.

I think it&#39;s "religiously" wrong. It&#39;s adultery.

Take religion away and it&#39;s go for what you know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+4 April 2004 - 23:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 4 April 2004 - 23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@4 April 2004 - 18:29
I think it highlights how irrelevant God is when it comes to defining moral behavior.

The religious might justify the act by saying that "God has a higher purpose" and we may not understand why he chose to kill in this case, and therefore; his desire was fulfilled.

Quite seriously, whether it is too kill or behave "morally" based on the word of an unknowable God, defined by man, there is no difference. It is all based in something which cannot be proven nor questioned, an absolute leap into the abyss with no safety net.

---

I just think God was a scapegoat.

An example of religion helping to define morals is marriage.

What&#39;s to stop me from slamming another man&#39;s wife if the oppurtinity presents itself.

I think it&#39;s "religiously" wrong. It&#39;s adultery.

Take religion away and it&#39;s go for what you know.[/b][/quote]


Marriage is a relationship of trust.

The comfort it provides is the understanding that once married I won&#39;t boink your wife, you won&#39;t boink mine.

God and religion have nothing to do with anything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@4 April 2004 - 23:29
I think it highlights how irrelevant God is when it comes to defining moral behavior.

The religious might justify the act by saying that "God has a higher purpose" and we may not understand why he chose to kill in this case, and therefore; his desire was fulfilled.

---

Bunkum, as you well know.

Your point only makes any sense if one assumes that God did in fact issue the instruction.

You do not believe God exists, therefore he could not have. So your post would be based, in your own eyes, on a false premise.

I do not believe that God would have issued an instruction to commit murder, as it is against his commandments.

The woman was lying or delusional. Either way, God did not tell her to commit infanticide.