Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 June 21

= June 21 =

If taking a human life is a sin, why does God Himself do it?
In general, this question is about the Roman Catholic faith, but insights from other philosophies (religious or otherwise) are fine. In the Roman Catholic faith, we learn that human life is sacred. And it is a mortal sin to take the life of another (e.g., murder, etc.). So, if we start out by believing that, how do we explain the fact that God Himself takes the lives of other humans? In other words: if it's so bad, and it's such a terrible sin, and God commands us not to do it, well then why does He Himself do it? Isn't that counter-productive to the belief that "life is sacred and it is a terrible sin to take someone's life"? Hypocritical? Now, there are many examples by which death can be seen as an act of man, and not an act of God. And, thus, the "blame" (cause) can fall upon man. For example, murder. If I die from lung cancer, we can "blame" humans (not God) as the cause of death because we (humans) created cigarettes, etc. If I die in a car crash, we can "blame" humans (not God) as the cause of death because we (humans) created cars. Etc. Etc. Etc. But, there are clearly examples of human death for which we cannot possibly assign the "blame" to other humans. And the "blame" (cause) must lie with God. Some examples: hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, lightning, tsunamis, avalanches, earthquakes, etc. All of those natural disasters. Does the Catholic Church have anything to say about this seeming paradox? How is the paradox reconciled? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Natural Disasters—Evidence That God Is Cruel?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013323
 * and "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005141.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The usual explanation is that God is exempt from any such rules. This is consistent with the model of God as the "ultimate king", keeping in mind that this was a time before the Magna Carta, when the law didn't apply to kings. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How does that answer the question of: "If it is so wrong, how and why would He Himself do it?"  Whether or not He is exempt from the rules, His actions show that "human life is cheap and expendable if even He Himself can (and does) take it away".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)


 * You're just not in the ancient mindset yet. Let's look at slaves.  A master had every right to kill his slaves, as they were his property.  But anybody else killing his slaves, that would be a crime.  Now put God in the role of master and all of humanity in the role of slaves.  So, murder isn't wrong for it's own sake, but because you were denying God his right to decide when everyone lives or dies. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, then, therein lies the discrepancy. I (and all of us other human beings) are not supposed to kill and murder other human beings because: (A) simply because God "said so"; or (B) because human life is valuable and sacred and should be respected?   I can understand (B); (except that God Himself also "takes" lives).  And (A) seems rather infantile, no?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * When you metaphorically "take a life", you're just ending it. When God does it, He gets to keep the soul, sort of like Shang Tsung, but without getting His hands dirty. At least according to InedibleHulk. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The section below that section and the Humanities Desk question within are also sort of relevant, if largely unsourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And, per Genesis 9, it's not just you and other humans who shouldn't kill humans, but the "beasts" as well (perhaps even the beast). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "because human life is ... sacred". Sacred literally means "set aside for God".  Your options A and B are not as distinct as you might have thought. Iapetus (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good point. Thanks.  I never quite looked at it that way!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem of evil Contact Basemetal   here  01:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Playing God is frowned upon. Being God is cool. There's no "we" in "Thou shalt not kill", and even if there was, God never kills anyone. There are more things in the world to blame than God and humans. If you can't blame a man for a drowning, you can still blame water. Just as much God's creation as man was. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Genesis also has a part about blood for blood. Maybe interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For the actual Catholic perspective on this, basically "God works in mysterious ways". The answer is "nobody knows and don't even bother asking". See Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 1, Paragraph 3.273 of the Catechism: "Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God's almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ's power." See also paragraph 7.385, and numerous other places. Just search the Catechism for "mystery", it's full of this stuff. God can appear to do things that make no sense because God is perfect and you cannot possibly hope to understand why, but if you first have faith that God is perfect, then it will make sense, or actually it will no longer be important that it does not make sense. Another thing to remember is that a good Catholic will take euphoric delight in the things about their faith that make the least sense. I suppose this is true for all Christians but I don't know anything about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The actual quote is God Moves in a Mysterious Way and was written by a slightly unstable Anglican. But I'm being pedantic. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd heard it from a Catholic brother (and second son) of an Anglican, who heard He was a She. But it's alright, it's all right. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would think the standard argument would be that we humans (i.e. our forebears Adam and Eve) disobeyed God and became mortal. That means everyone will eventually die, one way or another. In essence, we chose this path ourselves, so don't blame God. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But I didn't make any such choice :( Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. Adam chose it for you. See Original sin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Bible is big on collective punishment, something else we no longer believe in, at least where it's possible to punish the individuals involved alone. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Church is also big on people never dying, but living in Heaven or Hell forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, some Catholic theologians and philosophers distinguished God from nature and/or fortune, the latter being blind idiot quasi-demiurges. See The Consolation of Philosophy and Natural evil.  God having power to cause events does not necessarily mean that God does cause events.  Although most alchemists (many of whom were medieval Catholics or studied by them) got the scientific laws utterly wrong, they did place scientific laws between God and humanity.  From their perspective, God created natural laws, lets them run their course, and God is no more responsible for what natural laws do than what we do.  If your kid sticks a fork in the electrical socket, should you be held as responsible as if you had tazered them?  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The alchemists were wrong ??? I'm shocked ! Quick, get me some dephlogisticated air ! StuRat (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, "Thou shalt not kill" seems to be a bad translation. It should say "...not commit murder", as it's quite clear that the Bible condones killing, even genocide, as long as God commands it (or performs it directly), in which case it doesn't qualify as "murder" (the unlawful taking of a life). StuRat (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as you don't feel bloodguilt, according to our article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The actual word for that kind of death-bringing is retzach. I don't know how to pronounce it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that your link re-hosts our content, retzach might be more up-to-date. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a redirect now, to where I'd linked earlier. A rather timeless subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Joseph A. Spadaro one article that I haven't seen linked yet that you would probably find informative: Theodicy, including several Catholic perspectives. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think that article was actually linked within another article mentioned above.  Thanks for pointing it out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer Theiliad, myself. Or maybe the preceding is just a case of the idiocy.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think if you read Laudato si' it seems to extend the ethic of not taking a life to other activities, such as destroying the environment. The idea is that God has a plan and, however arrogantly we think we do, well... we don't.  The prohibition in this case, obviously, is not absolute, but then again, the prohibition against killing has seldom been taken as absolute in all cases either.  Maybe the relevant question is whether your actions are being driven by love (and thus genuine need) rather than some baser force, in which case God gets a pass.  Though it seems in any case strange to impute evil to a God that creates life and intends to restore it if there's some death in the meanwhile; it's no more murder than a surgeon stopping someone's heart to do surgery on it. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What it boils down to is this: if you believe in The Great Spirit In The Sky, contradictions don't matter (but, I repeat myself)DOR (HK) (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Who collects on the reward?
It's understood a reward was offered for the capture of the Charleston church shooting suspect. How much was the reward? Who collects on the reward since Dylann Roof the shooter was captured and arrested?142.255.95.167 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Make that alleged shooter. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're white of course yes. Not if you're black in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of his race, he's still only the alleged shooter. And notice, if you will, that most of these mass killings tend to be committed by whites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, only the State is required to believe him innocent until proven guilty. Private persons are not prevented by law from forming and/or expressing their own beliefs on the matter.  -- Jayron 32 14:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's lots of confused ideas like that around. When someone is acquitted you often hear people claiming that everyone should stop arguing about their guilt or innocence as if we were all legally obligated to adopt the same opinion as the jury on every matter once a trial is concluded. Some even cite the 5th amendment! However I have noticed that news outlet are often careful to prefix "alleged" as long as the "suspect" has not been convicted. I wonder why that is. Are they legally required to do so? Or are they trying to signal they are very serious and careful news outlets and really do not want to jump to conclusions? If so, even after conviction they ought to maintain their neutral "agnostic" attitude (since convictions can sometimes be wrongful) and they sometimes do (by using e.g. the phrase "the person who was convicted of doing X" instead of "the person who did X"). Maybe that journalistic lingo spreads into the general public hence Bugs's reaction. Contact Basemetal   here  15:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You asked: "However, I have noticed that news outlets are often careful to prefix "alleged", as long as the "suspect" has not been convicted. I wonder why that is. Are they legally required to do so?" The short answer is, yes, they are legally required to do so.  Or, more precisely, if they do not do so, they are open to being sued.  They (news outlets) do this, so that they are not sued (by the "alleged" criminal) for defamation, libel, and/or slander.  A private citizen can (legally) make the claim that "I think that Person X is guilty of murder."  A news outlet is (theoretically) in existence to report the news (i.e., to report the facts, not their opinions).  Therefore, a news outlet cannot (legally) state that a person committed a murder – or any crime – (as if it were a fact), before the conviction.  They can only (legally) state: "Person X is alleged by the government to have committed a murder."  After the conviction, they can (legally) state the "fact" that "Person X committed the murder."  If they want to be "extra careful", they can say that "The jury convicted Person X of murder" (or some such wording).  But, news outlets are not exempt from suits against them for libel, slander, and defamation.  So, a non-convicted person (a suspect) can sue a news outlet if that news outlet reports it as a fact that the suspect did indeed commit the crime.  That is why news outlets are so very careful to use the word "alleged" over and over again.  A side issue: if the news reports that a person is guilty of a crime (prior to conviction), what chance does that suspect have of a fair trial?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No reward was offered.--Shantavira|feed me 15:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Al Sharpton had planned to offer a reward (last but one paragraph) but Roof was arrested before it was put into place. Dalliance (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * An individual can say whatever they want, in general, but not on Wikipedia, because to proclaim the guy guilty is a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that WP:BLP (WP:BLPCRIME being the relevant shortcut here) applies to the reference desk (and everywhere else on Wikipedia). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Everybody is confusing me. I wasn't asking for any debates about Dylann Roof. The only thing I'm asking was about a reward that was bound to be offered. How much money would have it been?142.255.95.167 (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been answered. Your original question was not about "a reward that was bound to be offered" (whatever that means), it was about a reward that you thought was offered.  Previous posters have told you that no reward was offered, so your second post makes no sense.  --Viennese Waltz 07:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Any further comment the OP makes should begin with the removal of the BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. What's the BLP violation?  Didn't the guy confess / admit to these actions?   Or is that, under BLP, somehow irrelevant?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this, he confessed to the police. So... never mind! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, in a presumption of innocence way, though. If a trial's upcoming, shouldn't prejudge people. There's a difference between admitting you committed the acts and admitting you're guilty of the associated crime, and there are false confessions, too. Dzokhar Tsarnaev admitted it, pled not guilty. Plenty of things lawyers can try. Not terribly controversial, in this case, but it's easier to just set the bar somewhere clear (conviction) for everyone, than try to weigh each one. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)