Was it right for God to order Abraham to kill?

[marco]

In modern times we have people telling us that their God told them to kill. We think this absurd. But God told Abraham to murder Isaac. It doesn't matter what the outcome was, we have a precedent for God telling a human to murder another human and not, apparently, because the boy deserved to die, as did the suckling infants in another tale.

Is the command correct just because it is God's?

Was Abraham right in agreeing to commit murder?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]

Thats not my argument. My argument is that all people that hear from God have as evidence this story that they ahould not kill for God.

Voice says X story in Bible says not X.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

it is generally agreed there is no universal standard of what is right or wrong

Is this something you yourself hold to?

few individuals feel comfortable with stating they determine the absolute standards of what is right; only what they personally have been taught (by parents, teachers, instructors) to accept as such.

Oh there are plenty of people who are comfortable with stating what it is they believe is absolute right/wrong, and then pass it off as being what they believe an all knowing God has revealed/taught/declared...as if that is the be all and end all of the discussion.

Morals are just as relative.

Says the Jehovah's Witness.

One can ask if something is "legal" or "illegal"; that would depend on the court system being considered. Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life, so again would have to consider which law system is under consideration.

When I read this, I recalled a scene from early on in Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace. Nute Gunray is just about to land troops on the planet Naboo and is concerned with the legality of the act.
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
Sidiou's response? "I will make it legal".
We audience members are aware that these are the bad guys, these guys are using the law to justify their own actions. So JW, what makes Sidious's response of "I will make it legal" different from making what would ordinarily be an unlawful taking of life, lawful?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]

Thats not my argument. My argument is that all people that hear from God have as evidence this story that they ahould not kill for God.

Voice says X story in Bible says not X.

God blessed Abraham for his willingness to murder his son.

Voice says X story in Bible blesses for willingness to X.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

I always find it best not to tell people what their position on any given subject is in favor of asking them;

Generally speaking, I agree with you JW...thing is, look at what is being asked, being discussed. Do you REALLY have to be asked if it is right for God to order people to kill is right (or for people to carry out killing commands they believe have been God-ordered)? Why is it we can't just assume one would be against such things? After all, look at the other examples Marco gave. Do we really have to ask if you think it is all right to hit old ladies with baseball bats, or can we just assume it?
If we don't assume on questions like this...then you're opening yourself up to the possibility of "JW believes it is right to hit old ladies with baseball bats".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by myth-one.com]

Before anyone answers your question, they should have the facts about what really occurred that day on the mountain in Moriah:

God, Abraham, and probably even Isaac knew that no harm would befall Isaac on that day.

How is it a fact that Abraham and Isaac KNEW no harm would come about? It's not mentioned in the story.
This is a supposition on your part, a case of you working backwards from the end of the story to insert details earlier in the narrative that just plain are not there.
Did Peter Parker's learning of his uncle Ben's murder at the hands of a thief mean that Peter, while at the wrestling arena earlier in the day, KNEW what the thief was going to do?

No. Going from the story (which is what this subforum is about) all we can say is that Abraham knows is that he has been given a command from his god. What Isaac thinks or knows about the situation is not mentioned.

That is, we will go and return.

So does this definitely mean Abraham knows the future, knows what is going to happen and what is not going to happen?
Or is it a case of Abraham lying to his servants?
The text doesn't say. Indeed your interpretation would have Abraham having greater faith than even Jesus, for the New Testament makes Jesus out to question God a few times, even shouting why God has forsaken him while he lies dying on the cross.

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns:

A ram is an adult male sheep. Not a lamb. If we're supposed to go by the words of the story, then I have to point this out.

Even if I were to accept your interpretation that God wouldn't allow for a human sacrifice, I would have to question what then Jesus is supposed to be, when being called the sacrificial lamb. Is he supposed to be an actual lamb, of the genus Ovis? If the events of the Binding of Isaac are supposed to be a call forward to Jesus, why have an Ovis being sacrificed, and not, ya know, a human, as Jesus was?

Abraham knew Isaac would return with him because God promised Abraham that He would make an everlasting covenant with his son Isaac and Isaac's seed. This is a story of incredible faith! Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise.

How many other people throughout history have said God made promises to them...and yet what was promised didn't come about?

If Isaac was killed the above promise could not be fulfilled. God could not establish his covenant with Isaac and his seed if Isaac was dead!

Really? So death would otherwise have presented an obstacle to God, such that not even God Almighty Himself could have worked what he wanted to work?
Hmm...what about Jesus being the prophesied King of Kings? The descendant of David, the one to inherit his throne? God promised in Genesis
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his.
As Christians would say to me (assuming they know their history), not even the fact that Zedekiah was the last king of Judah presented an obstacle to God fulfilling his promise and having Jesus be the king.

But allowing Isaac to be killed was am impossibility.

Couldn't Isaac himself be part of the dualism? After all...Jesus is/was human. Isaac was human. It was God who 'sent' Isaac, who allowed Abraham and Sarah to conceive after Sarah had passed menopause.

[marco]

Was it right for God to order Abraham to kill?

Yes, God has a right to test us. Indisputably, God's command was just a test.

To be fair if we have faith in God then we do absolutely anything he asks. We see murders committed today, with the footnote that God is great. Like Abraham, these murderers BELIEVE that God wants them to murder and BECAUSE of the Abraham story, it cannot be argued that God would never ask this. Your line of argument supports this dangerous view.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]

Thats not my argument. My argument is that all people that hear from God have as evidence this story that they ahould not kill for God.

Voice says X story in Bible says not X.

Both the voice a person may hear today and the voice that Abraham heard are the same. A person may hear today "I am God, sacrifice your children to me" and Abraham heard a voice that said "I am God, sacrifice your son to me".
Do you know what would have worked as a better story? One that would have no ambiguity?
A story where God says to Abraham (and through him, to his descendants) that ANY command a voice may say to kill, even if the person believes that voice to be God, is just wrong, because...as you say...God would never order humans to kill.

Except for all those times in the Bible where he does.

If God actually would never order humans to kill...why is he depicted as doing so here in the Binding of Isaac story? Why doesn't God say to Abraham, right after Abraham hears the voice that tells him to sacrifice his son "No, Abe, that wasn't me! Don't kill your son!"?

[marco]

Given that you seem to completely understand the problem of people believing God told them to kill, then you could also appreciate God's desire to demonstrate so vividly that we are not to do that through Abraham.

Fine, except the story doesn't demonstrate this to the vast majority of listeners. It illustrates that God can command the killing of a child; it demonstrates that Abraham is good because he agreed to carry out what seems an evil command; it allows people of later generations, hearing God in their head, to conclude they can act as Abraham and they will be stopped at the last moment if that is God's will.

To go along with your line that it demonstrates that God does not want human sacrifice is to make a child a plaything. This recondite explanation does not remove the wickedness inherent in the tale, nor indeed does it fit the circumstances.

We could go further. This story should be the evidence that God does not want us to listen to the voice saying kill.

Well we would be wrong in this obscure interpretation, for the commendable thing was Abraham's willingness to do whatever God asked. Our attempts at justification invariably end in absurdities, because there is NO good explanation for the wicked command. It has no place in a "Good Book."

[marco]

[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]

Thats not my argument. My argument is that all people that hear from God have as evidence this story that they ahould not kill for God.

Voice says X story in Bible says not X.

They have an illustration that they should carry out, to the letter, the command given and IF it is God's will, they will be stopped. At no point did Abraham draw your conclusion; his intention was to murder, whatever his hopes may have been.


Your argument is not based on the story but on common decency, which is something different.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Was it right for God to order Abraham to kill?

"Right" is an opinion assessment based on ones personal values, it is generally agreed there is no universal standard of what is right or wrong and few individuals feel comfortable with stating they determine the absolute standards of what is right; only what they personally have been taught (by parents, teachers, instructors) to accept as such. So looking at the question as it stands we will have to ask where can we read what the level of something crossing from "right" to "wrong" can be found (which is the premise of the question). Morals are just as relative.

One can ask if something is "legal" or "illegal"; that would depend on the court system being considered. Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life, so again would have to consider which law system is under consideration.

This is a perfect example of how far the Bible literalist will go to defend the indefensible, and excuse the atrocious. Supposedy, (according to this tale attributed to YHVH) the God who teaches it is wrong to kill, does not abide by His own code in tempting Abraham to commit the sin of human sacrifice (murder), or to put it more piously, "putting him to the test".

Ironic that a believer would appeal to relative morality and situational ethics.