Question about whether God murdered

[angelskates]

I am a Believer. I constantly get asked questions by seeking friends and this one is tough:

When God caused the Flood, wasn't that murder? Murder is the deliberate, premeditated killing (please don't go changing this to unjustified, premeditated killing....). Whether justified or not (and He was surely justified) murder is murder. Doesn't this make Him a sinner?

At first my reason for believing this was okay was because I believe/believed that the Trinity wasn't complete until Jesus rose...now I'm not too sure.

God bless you!

[Canuckster1127]

I am a Believer. I constantly get asked questions by seeking friends and this one is tough:

When God caused the Flood, wasn't that murder? Murder is the deliberate, premeditated killing (please don't go changing this to unjustified, premeditated killing....). Whether justified or not (and He was surely justified) murder is murder. Doesn't this make Him a sinner?

At first my reason for believing this was okay was because I believe/believed that the Trinity wasn't complete until Jesus rose...now I'm not too sure.

God bless you!

Hello angelskates.

Glad you are here and welcome.

As to your question, it's really not reasonable to expect an answer when you exclude it in your question.

In terms of the question, God brought the flood as judgment. You'll recall that prior to the flood God's judgment after searching all of creation was that only Noah was a righteous man.

The flood was the method of judgment that He chose to wipe the slate clean and start over again, with just Noah and his family.

All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

God gave life. He has the right to take it. God is loving and just, and He cannot violate His own nature. In this instance, the flood was his means of delivering justice.

If you look at the 10 commandments, the command "Thou Shalt not Kill" is in fact, more accurately translated "Thou Shalt not Murder." God provided many instances where the taking of a human life was not only permissable but in fact commanded. For this purpose he established authority and process for this to take place.

That's the simple answer to your initial question.

As to your comment regarding the Trinity, aside from the fact that it seems non-sequitor to me, you appear confused on the nature of God as reflected in the Trinity.

In order for the Trinity to hold true as to the diety of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each individually and collectively must share in every attribute of God. One of those attributes is that God is eternal, meaning no beginning and no end. So the Trinity did not just "happen" when Jesus was born, crucified or resurrected.

John 1:1-14 clearly demonstrates Christ's eternality. The Holy Spirit was present and involved with the creation process in Gen 1:1-3. In fact, note the similarity to how each of these passages opens up. It's not a coincidence.

So anyway. Glad you came and I hope this helps you.

Bart

[Kurieuo]

The following page contains some helpful insights: Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments?

Kurieuo

[angelskates]

Kurieuo - nice to see a fellow Aussie

I have many problems with the article you posted. It's just not Biblical. In the Bible, it refers to out relationship with Christ as one of an intimate friendship, like a marraige. To quote for the link:

"Can God destroy God's property? The answer seems to be yes. You see, God is the King of the universe. He is King of the universe not because He is the most powerful, and not by some arbitrary rule, but because He created it and it belongs to Him from the beginning. God can do what He wants with His universe. If He chooses to give life, He can give it. If He chooses to take life, He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of His own property."

In the Bible, Jesus unequivocally states we are not to regard ourselves as 'property', but as friends in intimate relation to Him.

From a friend of mine (who I agree with): Now, you could say that in the Hebrew Bible, the Isaelites were considered God's property and thus, God could do whatever God wanted. This actually is a common way for Christians to interpret the Hebrew Bible, but it wouldn't be accurate. Throughout scripture (both Hebrew Bible and the New Testament), the language of God's covenant with humanity is one of intimacy and filiation, most akin to marriage. This has always been the covenantal relationship desired by God.

As proof of this, you'll see that nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are people EVER referred to or spoken of as God's 'property'. And there's a reason for this. For one, 'property' cannot enter into a covenantal relationship as it possesses no authority on its own. Second, 'property' bears no responsibility or obligation to itself or others. 'Property' can be made to do thins, but it can never be held morally liable for NOT doing things (since 'property' possesses no moral agency).

But clearly God entered into covenantal relationship with humanity from time of initial creation. And clearly as part of that covenantal relationship, humanity has always been held morally and spiritually responsible for its actions. So to me it's very clear God never regarded us, nor ever intended to regard us as His property.

[Canuckster1127]

Kurieuo - nice to see a fellow Aussie

I have many problems with the article you posted. It's just not Biblical. In the Bible, it refers to out relationship with Christ as one of an intimate friendship, like a marraige.

You have some good things to say in this regard and I don't necessarily disagree completely with your counterpoints except to point out in the provision of marriage this.

You are aware that is the Old Testament women were regarded as property to a significant degree and marriage was regarded as a property contract to some degree.

Isa 54:5 is a pretty clear passage of the type of relationship you are referring to.

Your statements are pretty general. Doyou have scripture to back up your points?

Another question in follow-up. In terms of the answers you were given both in the article and posted here, that was hardly the primary point brought out. Why are you choosing to engage only this issue and not interact with the primary arguments presented?

Do you agree that murder is a subctegory of "killing" and as such not all killing is murder?

Again, glad you're here and look forward to you participation and interaction.

Bart

[Blacknad]

Hi Angelskates, welcome,

I think the whole thing about property is pretty much an aside and doesn't help us.

When a criminal commits horrors then we incarcerate them, sometimes for life and especially with the criminally insane who are sometimes beyond help.

We effectively 'remove them from society' and take them out of any meaningful definition of 'life'.

So we believe we have the right to punish evil doers and remove them from society.

God has done the same.

Except when he decides to take someone out of society, he takes them literally out of life, and they are left to stand face to face with Him, for better or worse.

Why would anyone call that murder? Do you want to limit God's ability to punish evil or to take people out of 'society'?

What is amazing is that God did not take more people 'out of this life' in the pre-grace OT times.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[angelskates]

A friend of mine has really helped me with this issue, she's a doctoral student in biblical studies, concentration in New Testament and Early Christian Origins at Harvard.

Here's what she has said:

This type of understanding that people are just the property of God is really reflective of a modern capitalist economy where all physical beings are reduced to material worth whose sole value is derived from productive capacity (aka 'property').

But this type of understanding of creation is antithetical to biblical themes and messages. Consider:

"It will come about in that day," declares the LORD,"That you will call Me Ishi (husband), And will no longer call Me Baali (master/overlord/owner).
Hosea 2:16

And:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
John15:15

In the Greek, the word for translated as 'servants' is δουλος (doulos) which is the same word for slave. Here, Jesus specifies what exactly is meant by δουλος, and that is one who isn't in intimate relationship with Him and is unaware of His full plan. So in the case of δουλος here, Jesus regarded this as typological of a hierarchical relationship which he effectively dismantled.

So according to this verse, Jesus unequivocally states we are not to regard ourselves as 'property', but as friends in intimate relation to Him.

Now, you could say that in the Hebrew Bible, the Isaelites were considered God's property and thus, God could do whatever God wanted. This actually is a common way for Christians to interpret the Hebrew Bible, but it wouldn't be accurate. The verse I cited from Hosea rather amply illustrates. Throughout scripture (both Hebrew Bible and the New Testament), the language of God's covenant with humanity is one of intimacy and filiation, most akin to marriage. This has always been the covenantal relationship desired by God.

As proof of this, you'll see that nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are people EVER referred to or spoken of as God's 'property'. And there's a reason for this. For one, 'property' cannot enter into a covenantal relationship as it possesses no authority on its own. Second, 'property' bears no responsibility
or obligation to itself or others. 'Property' can be made to do things, but it can never be held morally liable for NOT doing things (since 'property' possesses no moral agency).

But clearly God entered into covenantal relationship with humanity from time of initial creation. And clearly as part of that covenantal relationship, humanity has always been held morally and spiritually responsible for its actions. So to me it's very clear God never regarded us, nor ever intended to regard us as His property.

I could say more on this, but I'll leave it there.

As to whether God is above the rules, again it's just not biblical to say God can do whatever God wants. God is actually never portrayed that way, and there's a purposeful reason for that.

In ancient times, the gods you see in Mesopotamian mythology, Sumerian Mythology, etc., all tend to have one thing in common---the gods are completely above humanity and above the rules. They can do whatever they want without consequence.

This is where the concept of 'fate' arose in Western society. Whatever befell people was entirely outside their control and the result of capricious, unaccountable gods. It is in this context where the Hebrew Bible stands in sharp contrast. ALWAYS God is shown in covenantal relationship that is as binding on God as it is on humanity. The was the distinctive nature of the God of Israel---Hashem (the ineffable name of God) was NOT capricious, and was NOT above the rules.

To assert the kind of god the author of that article does is not to assert the God of Israel, the God of Jesus Christ, the God revealed in scripture. Rather, it's actually a pagan notion of gods which scripture thoroughly rejects.

So however one wishes to resolve the issue of the taking of physical life, I really don't think one can resort either to humanity being the property of God, or that God is above His covenantal responsibilities. Those just aren't biblical concepts in my view.

So in a nutshell, we can't be considered God's property (because that would reflect a debased understanding of creation which the Bible rejects), and God is never above the rules (because the God of Jewish and Christian scripture is one of justice and covenant-making. God chooses to relate to creation always through covenants, and that entails God cannot act arbitrarily--to do so would go aganst the very revealed nature of God in scripture).

One of the points in the arguement was the "property" arguement (which I have given reasons to disagree with) and the other is "He's above the rules" which I have also given reasons to not agree with.

Please note that the words above are not my own. I have been discussing this with my friend (who is Christian) and what she says makes real sense to me. Her arguement against my original question is as follows for those interested:

I suppose there are many ways one could address it. WRT "justified killing", I *suppose* you could go that route. So thinking allowed, without question the prohibitions against murder in the Hebrew Bible are designated against innocent civilians. Pre-meditated murder. Why? Because all the laws in the Hebrew Bible are constructed around a particular topos--life-givingness. Why can't men have sex with women during their menses? Because the menses is understood in Hebrew tradition as the loss of life (even if only potential), and the loss of potential life cannot intrude on the potential start of life, so the two must be made separate in order to fully sanctify and honor life.

Similarly, the death sentences spelled out in Hebrew scriptures were understood somewhat symbolically (oral traditions and surrounding textual documentation indicate people were not executed in the way an initial read of Hebrew texts might indicate). But the idea behind them is that people could conduct themselves in a way that became at odds with life itself. In a nutshell, that life could at certain moments become opposed to itself.

This is a key tenet, and one undergirding Jewish laws governing abortion. Before birth, it was understood that the life of the fetus/baby could threaten the life of the mother. Life opposed to life. So in such circumstances, certain regulations were put in place to govern those fundamental conflicts (in the case of abortion, the mother's life is to be preferred since she is considered whole, while the life of the fetus is only reckoned as half).

So, to apply that to your example, it *could* be argued that a situation had arisen where life was opposed to life itself. This is hinted at Genesis 6:1-4. In verse 2 the phrase, "sons of God" is usually understood to be non-human life, or spiritual beings. In the Tanakh, it's translated as:

When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them.
vv. 1-2

Jewish commentary elaborates on this point and says "divine beings" in this text clearly refers to the angelic host, the celestial entourage of God.

Those divine beings took wives not on the basis of character, but because of looks and lust. And to these unions were born the Nephilim in verse 4. These Nephilim continued to procreate, and their conduct is likened to fallen angels (the etymological root of their name).

So basically another "creation" occurred, but one which was opposed to the creation of God. And the wickedness of the Nephilim threatened the physical and spiritual existence of the creation of God. Life opposed to life.

But because with God life doesn't end at the moment of physical demise, the flood is often intepreted as a moment of divine mercy. Verses 6-7 speak of God's regret over humanity, NOT because God's creation wasn't good, but because the actions of the "divine beings" had created circumstances on the earth that resulted in perpetual, unmitigated suffering for God's creation. It was in this context that God showed regret that *any* creation should be subjected to that kind of fate.

So in an act of divine mercy, God spared what was left of creation by ending their physical torment and bringing them immediately into their unspoiled spiritual existence.

Notice that nowhere in vv. 1-6 does it say, "God was angry", or "God despised" humanity. It only says "God regretted" and "was saddened."

So this would indicate this can in no way be understood as "murder" as spelled out in the decalogue.

Also, I'd say "murder" does not relate to God in a real sense. Why? Because murder is predicated on the notion of loss of (innocent, civilian) life. But for God, life isn't measured solely in material, bodily terms. It's also measured spiritually. Thus, for God, a non-material being, to murder, God would have to cause spiritual beings to no longer exist (the spiritual equivalent of "murder"). And that is one thing you will find nowhere in scripture---God acting in a way to annhiliate spiritual existence.

[Now, theologically there are reasons posited for this, but I won't delve into those].

And I do think that is signficant that in every instance, spiritual beings may be separated from the presence of God, but they are never deprived of their existence. So in this way, God not only has not, but really cannot murder because it goes against the very nature of God as Creator.

Canuckster1127 - I am talking about relationship with God, not relationship with any other person. Yes, I certainly agree that not all killing is murder (self defense for one).

[August]

Hi Angelskates, and welcome to our forum.

Your friend certainly seems to make a lot of sense, and those are good answers.

I want to take a slightly different direction. I think that we must be careful not to make God the accused when we frame questions like this. It seems as if we humans are too eager to make God the defendant, by levelling accusations at Him, based on our human perspective. Of course, that is a bit silly, since we then have to assume that there is some higher moral standard to which both God and us are subject. It is good to try and understand more of the complexities and intricacies of God, but we should guard against trying to judge God. Atheists are keen to do that, but they cannot account for the higher absolute moral standard that they wish to use to judge God. As Christians, we accept God not only as the author, but also the essence of moral absolutes, and therefore we cannot accuse the essence of morals to be not of that essence. It is simply illogical to presume that.

God bless.

[angelskates]

August - the discussion came about with a very intellegent non-Believer/seeker. I completely understand what you are saying, and agree, however, to a seeker, I feel she deserves/wanted more of an explanation. She is yet to make a firm decision of what "God" is and she is struggling with a common issue (all the pain and suffering in the world). I have been able to satisfy her with my answers on that issue, but had never thought about the Flood as being anything but a GOOD thing, then she suggested it was not. While I never actually believed her, I did feel that I should look into the issue more, and doing so has not only strengthened my own belief, but hopefully assisted her in making a choice. I think that questioning and critiqueing are very healthy and necessary within my faith.

I completely dislike the "He just does/is/had the right" arguements that I hear all the time, I sometimes see this as a cop out. Sure, Christianity ultimately comes down to faith, but there is more back-up to that faith than many people know.

I believe that some people (probably all people, myself included) just need to look deeper, the answers are there!

Blacknad - it is us humans who take murderers out of society, not God. If the murderer repents to God, then he is saved. If he doesn't, then he will be eternally seperated from God. It doesn't matter whether humans take them out of society on Earth or not, what matters is their heart, whether they repent. Murderers can still be saved.

[August]

Hi Angelskates,

I hear what your saying, and of course, since you are in that specific circumstance, I cannot tell you how to answer, you will do that according to what is suited to the specific person. However, with non-Christian seekers, it is important that we also show that it is pretty hard to make sense of things like this from a non-Christian worldview. This is not a hand-waving "God does what He likes" type answer, but cuts right to the heart of any disagreement between Christians and non-believers, the underlying worldview. Ultimately we can explain all the apparent difficulties, and grow in the process, but the fundamental difference is down to conflicting worldviews, and the sooner in any conversation with a seeker we can get to that, the sooner we get to explain the good news of the gospel.

Anyhow, keep up the good work.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo - nice to see a fellow Aussie

I have many problems with the article you posted. It's just not Biblical. In the Bible, it refers to out relationship with Christ as one of an intimate friendship, like a marraige. To quote for the link:

"Can God destroy God's property? The answer seems to be yes. You see, God is the King of the universe. He is King of the universe not because He is the most powerful, and not by some arbitrary rule, but because He created it and it belongs to Him from the beginning. God can do what He wants with His universe. If He chooses to give life, He can give it. If He chooses to take life, He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of His own property."

In the Bible, Jesus unequivocally states we are not to regard ourselves as 'property', but as friends in intimate relation to Him.

I would agree with you. Yet, I do not see the point is whether or not we are alikened to an object of property belonging to someone... we are certainly a lot more than property since we have capacities to love or reject. Yet, God's sovereignty at the same token should not be dismissed out of hand. I'm sure you have often heard it stated that such and such has no right to play God. This implies God has certain rights which do not apply to human beings. It is God perogative as God to create life, it is God's perogative to take life.

Now to specifically deal with the flood, a hidden assumption seems to be that God doesn't have the right to judge and to carry out consequences of such judgement. God's righteousness demands He judges wickedness, and as such there are consequences. Yet, we find in the OT the following passages regarding God and His judgement:

• "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)
  
  "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live." (Ezekiel 18:31-32)
  
  "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'" (Ezekiel 33:11)
  
  "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD." (Ezekiel 18:29-30)
  
  "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You." (Psalm 5:4)

Here it is made clear that God takes no delight in carrying out punishment, but His righteous nature demands it of Him regardless of His love for us. Does God's judgement make Him unrighteous? That seems like an oximoronic type of question to me. For if God is righteous then He necessarily has to carry out judgement upon those who are wicked. As Paul writes: "But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?" It is clear in both the OT and NT that God has the perogative to judge and punish us for wickedness.

Now what about the flood? In Genesis 6:5-8 we read the reason for why God destroyed humanity at that time:

• 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

And in Genesis 6:11-12 we further read: "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." Filled with violence? For all we know humanity was going to kill itself off. God's sparing Noah and his wife and sons could be seen in this light as an act of compassion. If God truly desired death, He could have wiped out all of humanity, but he spared Noah out of grace (v.8 )

Now you may rule out God being able to mete out justice, arguing the regardless of the issue of justice God is committing murder. You may cling to this concept of "murder", but when I read Scripture I see that murder is always considered in the light of being unjustified killing. For example, within the the ten commandments Israel are told not to kill another person. Yet, then within the Mosaic law God prescribes capital punishment as an appropriate punishment for a number of crimes. This suggests that taking a human life without proper justification is wrong. Afterall, what is the distinction between "killing" and "murder" if it is not a matter morality?

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

August - the discussion came about with a very intellegent non-Believer/seeker. I completely understand what you are saying, and agree, however, to a seeker, I feel she deserves/wanted more of an explanation. She is yet to make a firm decision of what "God" is and she is struggling with a common issue (all the pain and suffering in the world). I have been able to satisfy her with my answers on that issue, but had never thought about the Flood as being anything but a GOOD thing, then she suggested it was not. While I never actually believed her, I did feel that I should look into the issue more, and doing so has not only strengthened my own belief, but hopefully assisted her in making a choice. I think that questioning and critiqueing are very healthy and necessary within my faith.

It is good you are attempting to provide a reason to those who ask. One should always bear in mind however that one carries with them a certain "way of seeing". It may be she just can't see the sense in the responses being given, although we can see the logic entirely. For example, my wife pre-Christian years could not see God anywhere in the world, especially not the God described in Chrisitanity. To her, the world was one of chance especially in light of the horrible things which happen. She would often say things to me, "I just can't believe... I can't change my thinking... the way I see things..." Yet, upon conversion her "sight" changed and she saw the world in a new light. She saw the design all around her, the Gospel message opened up to her, her perception changed (or I would say became heightened spiritually). This is a common experience amongst Christians. Just think of what John Newton meant when he sang the words to Amazing Grace, "I once was lost, but now I'm found; was blind but now I see."

For us who do believe, we can see that disbelief is just as much as matter of faith if not more so given everything we see so evidentally. How can they be so blind? Yet, one should keep in mind we may have a priviledged position they do not have. And such blindness is futher compounded if in our natural state we do not wish to seek God (Romans 3:11). Thus, it is a matter of striving to show them what they cannot see, and which in their natural state they do not wish to seek. What is it that brings about a change is perhaps up for theological reflection. Some theologians believe it is a matter of one's heart (whether or not it is open or willing), some believe God must first bestow grace upon a person so they can see (e.g., Calvinists). I see it is a combination of both, although I won't expand here upon it now.

Keeping this issue in mind I think can help us as Christians to not become so frustrated when people just don't see. I can only imagine what it would be like for a person born blind trying to grasp what colours are like, shapes, etc. To us who do see, it is good to provide reasons to the challenges we face from those who don't see. If this much can be accomplished for your question here, so that you are satisfied, then that may be as much as you are going to get... for now. You may just have to disagree with your friends until hopefully one day they see the matter differently.

Kurieuo

[angelskates]

Kurieuo - I am choosing to rather than just say "I disagree with you" to my friend to find a reason why. I HAD never thought of the Flood as murder, so I couldn't actually put into words why I believed it wasn't.

A bit of background: I did not grow up Christian, I grew up fake Catholic because my grandma was Catholic and made my family go to church and go through all the Catholic rituals. I became a believer of my own accord in 1998 after questioning A LOT - I am a logical thinking and to me Christianity is very logical.

I live in Beijing so I have to not only back up my beliefs to people, but I need to back them up logically and well. "Christians" have done some not-so-good work here and undoing/remoulding it is hard. A lot of people I know (Chinese) call themselves Christians, but don't know the Spirit and don't actually KNOW what they believe, they merely believe because some foreigner told them if they did they would be saved and go to Heaven. They have very little understanding of the Word, God and Christianity.

My friend is very close to making a decision, she thinks all I have told her is logical (which is important to her) and has now told me that she actually believes in God. She is not debating me, challenging me or argueing, she is merely asking questions because she believes in making an informed decision, as do I, after all, it is the most important one! She does see God in things and she saw Him in me, which is why she feels safe enough to ask me questions. She also understands and LIKES the fact I can admit that I don't, nor does anyone on this Earth, have all the answers. Previously Christians she has come in to contact could not say "I don't know, but I'll ask and look it up" or even "I just feel that He has guided me that way" (in instances where the Bible is not clear, when you can be given an answer in prayer, but it's hard to explain to a non-Believer.) They always had an answer, even if it was illogical, un-Biblical...wrong.

She has let to admit He is in control and has not yet let Him into her heart because she feels unworthy. This, to me, is a great sign and I have faith that she will soon commit.

Thanks for all your replies. I never stop learning.

[Kurieuo]

I feel I've been misunderstood on several issues, so just to clarify some points...

Western people are very different to Eastern and tend to have an engrained skepticism and hardness against Christianity and God in general. Further, it has become apparent to me within philosophy of religion (God's existence), that one needs to account for how two equally intelligent people who are entirely familiar with arguments both for and against God's existence can arrive two entirely opposite conclusions. It seems reason is largely affected by our hearts or gut intuitions, and I don't see that this conclusion can be escaped. Yet, this does not mean reason or looking for answers is unimportant—I think it very important. I think I went beyond what you desired, so see no real need to dwell on this, but from what you say your friend seems quite open.

To clarify something further, I also advocate loving God with the mind, as well as heart and soul (Mark 12:30). Yet I see one should never be neglected for the other. In any case, welcome to the board and I'll pray God will help you with whatever you need to help those around you.

Kurieuo