Laudable insofar as the statement goes, but to accomplish it you need to know what, if anything, is wanted.
because of the justification that He gives me.
Given through what mechanism? If you say "the bible", I will be most thoroughly disappointed.
In order to please God, I must be faithful.
Faithful as in "true", or as in "blindly believing"?
In order to be faithful, I must enact my faith through works. In order to properly enact my faith through works, I must follow God's law.
Cogent enough, but the truth value of the argument turns fully on the truth value of the suppositions.
God's law is an interesting beast.
This assumes the law of which you speak is, in fact, God's. It may be nothing more than man's arbitrary law with the imprimatur of "God" painted on for effect, which would mean it is nothing better than arbitrary crap designed to serve interests that are not likely to align well with your own.
There's the moral dilemma of having Siamese twins, who are attached to one another. One is healthy, but is losing that health because of a sickly twin that is killing the other. According to sheer utility, one should cut off the twin that is killing the other. The ends would seem to justify the means
If there is good reason to believe that the sickly twin is toast no matter what, then it can be strongly argued from a moral perspective that you are obliged to separate the two if you are able, assuming that preserving life in such manner is some universal mandate with which humans are to comply.
However, God's law does not allow killing of innocent people.
Again you presume the law in question is actually God's - that aside, God's law prohibits
murder, which is the unjustifiable taking of innocent life. In this case, the taking of life is eminently justifiable because to do nothing entails allowing another life to be lost unnecessarily.
There is an old addage of the Bushi (samurai) which states:
Satsujin ken, katsujin ken.
"The sword that takes life, the sword that gives life." By killing another in defense of my own life, I give life to myself. In killing to defend the life of another person, through that act I have given life to another. All such transactions are two-way affairs.
Your siamese twins hypothetical is an example of same. It can easily be argued that the only morally correct thing to do is save the life that can be saved. If "God" would have it otherwise, he should have made the wish far more clear to us. But we were given brains, the purposes of which are that they be used for something more than just a hat rack. We were given both emotion and rational thought. If "God" is going to fuck with us in so apparently sadistic a manner, then he can kiss my butt, so sorry. I do not for a moment believe that your assertions about "God's" law are even remotely truthful.
The deaths of the two children is tragic
In the given context, you are Wrong-0. Not tragic: wholly unnecessary. Were those my twins, I would make the decision and I would live with the consequences. If anyone tried to stop me, I would put a bullet 'tween their eyes. If "God" has a roasty place in hell for me in the afterlife, so be it. I will not act in a way that is so apparently idiotic for the sake of pleasing a potentially wholesale-wrong understanding of what "God" wants me to do in such a situation.
Take such argument's as yours to the healthy twin who is dying and see what joy they will feel to know you're doing "God's" work. Sorry, but this stinks like a great steaming pile of self-serving nonsense. Barring conclusive proof that this is actually what "God" wants, this brand of reasoning serves but one purpose in my mind: to absolve people of the responsibility for using the brains given them in ways that make rational sense in the world of human life.
This argument is similar to that used by Mennonites to justify cowardice and the abdication of personal responsibility in self defense situations. A "good" Mennonite will do nothing to prevent someone from harming them. They will do nothing to prevent someone from murdering their children. Poltroons! Their arguments are nonsense-laden bullshit from one end to the other.
murder of one of the children is sinful,
Bull. It is NOT murder. It is an act of defense resulting in the saving of one life rather than allowing the loss of two. This should not be that difficult to comprehend.
so we justify the two children's death
Were the act just, no justification would need be made. This is not justification, it is rationalization of poltroonery and abdication of responsibility. How does your "God" feel about that? If it pleases him, you need a new God.
by the fact that, in order to be faithful, we must follow God's law, for following it is the highest moral ground, even above unfavorable ends to the most extreme extent.
Sure, but you had best be sure you know what God wants. Pardon me, but to hell with any written law that conflicts with my inner sense of right - the law written upon the hearts of all living beings is that which is to be obeyed. When everything that you are is shrieking at you from within to save the life that can be saved, methinks you'd damned well better listen to that and tell anyone waving a book that says otherwise to back the hell off.
The same applies to animals. God would not want us to abuse animals. However, it would be sinful to force another person to stop since animals have no rights.
This is more of the same rationalistic nonsense designed to excuse one from responsible action. If someone came to my place and was going to harm one of my chickens, I would stop them even if I had to kill them. It would have nothing to do with property rights. It would have everything to do with what I know to be right and the defense of a member of my family.
Do I say you are compelled to stop someone from abusing an animal? Not at all. We all make our choices and one day we will all come to learn the ultimate propriety of them. But I am similarly not entirely against the notion of interfering on a good faith basis when the actions of another wander past the boundary of that which is tolerable, come what may as the chips fall.
Ergo, animal abuse is tragic, but coercion and theft of money in order to fund such coercion is sinful.
Profoundly weak argument. It is structurally similar to saying we should let the rapist go because, thankfully, he did not kill his victim. Yeah - HELLO. Animal abuse is not a tolerable act just as murder is not tolerable. Killing animals to eat them is one thing. Tormenting them and damaging them is, by any sane standard, "sinful" as you put it.
My means of being faithful to God justify the ends of this earth.
IMO you need to work on this a bit. But do as you will, of course. Just make sure you don't beat your dog in front of me because you won't have him long thereafter.
Luckily for us, we know that, as long as we are faithful, God will count us as righteous.
That is a VERY big assumption - and a very dangerous one. I'd bet money I do not have that you don't know the first thing about "God's" will. Don't feel badly about that - I say the same for every other human walking the earth, myself included.
St. Bernard made mention of Hell being choked full of "good intentions". I for one see no virtue in renouncing my responsibility for using my brain in accord with the most obvious nature born into it. I will choose that over the words of any book, any day. Again, do asyou feel is right, but so shall I.
