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?

[marco]

. 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)?

Yes.

Of course the alternative is to employ your mind reading capacities or presume to guess, but if you want to know rather than just believe in your heart that you already know.... you will indeed need to ask.

It is arrogant to assume that one infallibly knows the mind of God. It is wicked to ignore minimum standards of civilised behaviour in the belief that one is carrying out a divine command. We are told NOT to kill; if our little voice urges us to do so, we are entitled to refuse; in fact we must refuse. It is a dangerous road to go down to believe that wickedness can be seen as otherwise when God seems to command it.

Because everybody has different standards, people have different morals,

Of course there are borderline cases. Is marriage at 13 acceptable? In the case of an order to murder an innocent child there is no borderline case and any society that seeks to justify this command is wrong.

[marco]

Cmon now, marco. As familiar you are with Christian theology, I am sure you know that anytime God gives a command, it is morally justified.

So why ask the question?

I do not "know" this. If we are allowing God to issue what we see as wicked commands, then morality has gone. All that remains is a divine tyrant doing what he wants, just like Brennus the Gaul who threw the weight of his sword on the scales to demand more Roman gold, saying: "Vae victis!" Woe to the conquered.

As civilised humans encountering an order to do something wicked, like murder a child, we refuse on the basis that we have our moral code and the God we honour supposedly has given us this for guidance. We would deduce that Satan, not God, issued the order.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is arrogant to assume that one infallibly knows the mind of God. It is wicked to ignore minimum standards of civilised behaviour in the belief that one is carrying out a divine command. We are told NOT to kill; if our little voice urges us to do so, we are entitled to refuse; in fact we must refuse. It is a dangerous road to go down to believe that wickedness can be seen as otherwise when God seems to command it.

Thank you for sharing.

Was there a reason you chose to share these thoughts with me in particular? If so do you feel inclined to say what that reason was?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I do not "know" this.

Well, you know this is true according to "Christian theology". In fact, God's holiness/benevolence is permeated throughout Christian theology.

Now, you may not believe in the truth value of Christianity, but you at least know what the theology is all about, and God's holiness is one of central theme of it all.

If we are allowing God to issue what we see as wicked commands, then morality has gone.

If you don't believe in God, then objective moral values is out of the window anyway. Therefore, things like evil and wickedness...and even things like good/righteousness are all subjective and relative.

So in essence, your beef with God's commands is based upon an unjustifiable moral compass, of which you can't provide any logical ground as to why any action (X) is right or wrong...other than "It is wrong because I said so".

All that remains is a divine tyrant doing what he wants, just like Brennus the Gaul who threw the weight of his sword on the scales to demand more Roman gold, saying: "Vae victis!" Woe to the conquered.

Unbelieving tactic: Lets ignore all of the Bible where God rewards, forgives, blesses, shows grace, mercy, kindness, etc...lets ignore all of those parts, and lets focus on when God shows anger, justice, and discipline. Lets only focus on the parts of the Bible that gives us "justification" for disbelief.

As civilised humans

Civilized animals*

encountering an order to do something wicked, like murder a child

All life belongs to God.

, we refuse on the basis that we have our moral code and the God we honour supposedly has given us this for guidance. We would deduce that Satan, not God, issued the order.

Please justify why killing is wrong.

[brianbbs67]

It was a test of faith. Abram didn't know why he was asked this, he complied to find an answer.

Since God at this point was already planning to sacrifice His only begotten, maybe He wondered how man would react in the same circumstance. Free will and all.

Abram said to his servants he was coming back as well as his son. So, he knew the conclusion would benefit just not the details. God seems to always benefit us. Why doubt?

[Elijah John]

It was a test of faith. Abram didn't know why he was asked this, he complied to find an answer.

Since God at this point was already planning to sacrifice His only begotten, maybe He wondered how man would react in the same circumstance. Free will and all.

Abram said to his servants he was coming back as well as his son. So, he knew the conclusion would benefit just not the details. God seems to always benefit us. Why doubt?

Two questions.

1) Is human blood sacrifice sin?

2) Does God ever tempt anyone to sin?

Something here, does not "compute".

[marco]

Now, you may not believe in the truth value of Christianity, but you at least know what the theology is all about, and God's holiness is one of central theme of it all.

I am trained to reassess a belief when I find a contradiction. Christian theology may well advertise its God as good. That is why I am puzzled that a good being would ask for the murder of a man's son. I am reading the attempted replies but find them unconvincing.

If you don't believe in God, then objective moral values is out of the window anyway. Therefore, things like evil and wickedness...and even things like good/righteousness are all subjective and relative.

Completely irrelevant. We are discussing the tale of Yahweh and Abraham. For the purposes of the discussion they both exist, albeit I agree they may both be fictional characters.

Unbelieving tactic: Lets ignore all of the Bible where God rewards, forgives, blesses, shows grace, mercy, kindness, etc...lets ignore all of those parts, and lets focus on when God shows anger, justice, and discipline. Lets only focus on the parts of the Bible that gives us "justification" for disbelief.

This is a particularly weak way to argue. By all means let's examine God's acts of goodness when they are relevant. The case before us is one where Yahweh orders murder. He may well have done something kind the previous Wednesday, but is that relevant?

Please justify why killing is wrong.

In fact we are discussing the COMMAND to murder a child not the actual killing. The world I live in - rightly or wrongly - considers an order to kill an innocent child as wicked. I happily submit that this view needs no defence.

[marco]

It was a test of faith. Abram didn't know why he was asked this, he complied to find an answer.

A test is to discover what is as yet unknown. It wasn't a test. It may have been a game.

Since God at this point was already planning to sacrifice His only begotten, maybe He wondered how man would react in the same circumstance. Free will and all.

I take this is a jocular submission. God is hardly restricted by man's sun and moon in his "plans." I think your wondering God is a step in the human direction too far.

Abram said to his servants he was coming back as well as his son. So, he knew the conclusion would benefit just not the details. God seems to always benefit us. Why doubt?

And is it not clear that Abraham would say this even when he fully intended to kill his son? If he KNEW the outcome, then the whole scenario is silly, serving only to perplex the boy and confuse readers.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I am trained to reassess a belief when I find a contradiction. Christian theology may well advertise its God as good.

That is why I am puzzled that a good being would ask for the murder of a man's son.

And I'd like to know where you are getting this sense of "good/bad" from...and how are you able to determine its virtue.

I am reading the attempted replies but find them unconvincing.

No surprise.

Completely irrelevant. We are discussing the tale of Yahweh and Abraham. For the purposes of the discussion they both exist, albeit I agree they may both be fictional characters.

I am just merely asking you how/why is God's command of Abraham to kill his son an evil thing to command?

This is a particularly weak way to argue. By all means let's examine God's acts of goodness when they are relevant.

Yeah, but if it is left up to a typical unbeliever, it is never relevant..and that is the point.

The case before us is one where Yahweh orders murder.

Again, why is killing/murder a bad thing? Please explain.

He may well have done something kind the previous Wednesday, but is that relevant?

He also may well have a morally sufficient reason as why he would command the killing of someone.

In fact we are discussing the COMMAND to murder a child not the actual killing. The world I live in - rightly or wrongly - considers an order to kill an innocent child as wicked.

So right/wrong is based upon what the "world" thinks? Ok, so if the "world" concludes that anyone under 6'5 tall needs to be executed, would that be ok (assuming you are under 6'5).

See what happens when right/wrong is based on the world/society?

I happily submit that this view needs no defence.

It does, actually.

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by For_The_Kingdom]

See what happens when right/wrong is based on the world/society?

I am not convinced that even if it were based upon something else, we would be any closer to actually knowing what R&W are.


It s all pretty much hearsay/opinion.

If one wishes to argue that a book claimed to be the word of a GOOD GOD is the way to go to determine right/wrong, well look how that little expedition is going!

What evidence is there that following that path is any better than following the 'right/wrong is based on the world/society' path, or simply following the dictates of ones own conscience for that matter?

At least in going it alone one does not have the stigma of the groups to contend with (worldly or secular) and one has also invested self responsibility into the equation in a more vibrant manner than those other mediums can accomplish.

Indeed, we are experiencing the analogue rather than digital - so on/off, 0/1, right/wrong are not altogether practical to that. It is simply never a case of black/white.