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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

I actually agree with you, for the most part. Me personally, I believe in objective moral values based on the background information I have to believe/accept the Judeo-Christian God.

That being said; I don't necessarily have a knockdown argument that I can provide which will prove objective morality to be true.

My main point in all of this is; if objective moral values/duties DOES exist, then it logically follows that God must also exist...and one cannot maintain an objective position on these matters, if one is not willing to accept the idea of an objective lawgiver.

However, if one does not believe in God, then it seems to me that morality becomes subjective/relative...and as you said, a matter of hearsay/opinion.

[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?

Two questions.

1) Is human blood sacrifice sin?

2) Does God ever tempt anyone to sin?

Something here, does not "compute".

1 I would think so, but can't find it in the law.(Moses) Other gods, supposedly demanded this, so, maybe not completely out of line, then? Then we hear of Jeptha and his daughter, and then Saul's sons. None of those was asked by God, but yet are in the OT.

2 "do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil" If God is not directly tempting us, others in the world He set in motion certainly will.

I don't mean that to say God is tempting us, I mean it as the world He setup for us will. I believe He wants us to always choose good.

[brianbbs67]

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.

I admit stretching things a bit to see responses. I do think it was some kind of test or game for some unknown reason. Maybe Abraham didn't believe God would make him actually do it. Who knows? It is an odd part of the story.

[marco]

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).

The world of course holds no consensus. Women are beheaded, for religious reasons, in some countries. In fact it seems only when we are dealing with religion that we need to ask the obvious: Is the arbitrary killing of a child wrong?



Religious folk have a problem. Jesus would say it is wrong, for one mustn't harm one of these little ones or he'd be better off with a millstone round his neck. No one seemed to challenge Jesus, as you do, as to why this remarkable pronouncement was right. The problem is when God seems to order an act we would consider as evil. We then either question our views of God or reassess our views of what is evil, and, like you, we can happily say that killing a child becomes fine when God commands it, since God is morality.


We have evolved in our morality; we don't leave old folk on a hillside to die or bury baby girls alive or sacrifice children to the gods. Much of the bad old ways stemmed from religious superstition. If we moved atavistically to a situation where we kill those over or under a certain height, then the spark of advancement that lets a mum tell her child not to hit others would be extinguished. This can certainly happen. When ISIS decided to serve God by sacrificing people and getting children to murder they believed this was religiously right. God did not forbid it. In fact God endorsed it. But those who had evolved to the stage where such acts were seen as revolting needed no God to instruct them. I see child killing or child sacrifice as wrong because I am privileged to live in an advanced civilisation that has discarded horrible superstitions. True, some people do commit wicked acts, but society has developed sufficiently to condemn them, without relying on God's indifference.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The world of course holds no consensus.

Its called; hypothethical.

Women are beheaded, for religious reasons, in some countries. In fact it seems only when we are dealing with religion that we need to ask the obvious: Is the arbitrary killing of a child wrong?

Well, if God doesn't exist, we are nothing but animals. When a male lion takes over a pride, it kills the cubs..so technically, the male lion is "killing children". Is the lion wrong? No? Well then why is a human "animal" wrong for killing children? Why?

There is no answer to this on naturalism. If you want those objective moral values, such as child killing is wrong...then you simply need to embrace theism, because that is the only way you are going to get it.

Religious folk have a problem. Jesus would say it is wrong, for one mustn't harm one of these little ones or he'd be better off with a millstone round his neck. No one seemed to challenge Jesus, as you do, as to why this remarkable pronouncement was right.

Um, why would I challenge Jesus here?

The problem is when God seems to order an act we would consider as evil.

You seem to have this idea that there are absolutely, positively, NO morally sufficient reasons to kill someone. If that is what you think, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

We then either question our views of God or reassess our views of what is evil, and, like you, we can happily say that killing a child becomes fine when God commands it, since God is morality.

We can talk about why God would have commanded Abraham to do such a thing..that is a discussion to be had...however, I am still trying to figure out where you are getting this sense of "x is evil" from?

Where are you getting this standard from and how does it have more virtue than any other standard.

We have evolved in our morality; we don't leave old folk on a hillside to die or bury baby girls alive or sacrifice children to the gods. Much of the bad old ways stemmed from religious superstition. If we moved atavistically to a situation where we kill those over or under a certain height, then the spark of advancement that lets a mum tell her child not to hit others would be extinguished. This can certainly happen. When ISIS decided to serve God by sacrificing people and getting children to murder they believed this was religiously right. God did not forbid it. In fact God endorsed it. But those who had evolved to the stage where such acts were seen as revolting needed no God to instruct them. I see child killing or child sacrifice as wrong because I am privileged to live in an advanced civilisation that has discarded horrible superstitions. True, some people do commit wicked acts, but society has developed sufficiently to condemn them, without relying on God's indifference.

Its hard to really dive into this until you can explain to me how is your standard of morality the correct way to go, as opposed to any other standard.You are basically giving me a "review" of a movie, but yet I may watch the movie and have a completely different review than you.

This stuff is blatantly relative if you take all objectivity from it. Everything is rendered to mere opinions, and opinions shouldn't be held as cosmic law.

[marco]

The world of course holds no consensus.

Its called; hypothethical.

I see - you just misunderstood the sentence.

Is the lion wrong? No? Well then why is a human "animal" wrong for killing children? Why?

There is no answer to this on naturalism. If you want those objective moral values, such as child killing is wrong...then you simply need to embrace theism, because that is the only way you are going to get it.

The rules governing lions or ants are not those governing humans. So your example has no application. Because you have persuaded yourself that God issued the moral code perhaps on some mountain is no reason to require that this view be universally accepted. I can accept that early man did not share our morality, not because God had overslept, but because we had not reached a particular level of civilisation. We may have come to a civilised set of standards first from self interest, but we have evolved a way of looking at actions and seeing some as wrong and some as altruistic. It is unnecessary to speculate divine intervention.

You seem to have this idea that there are absolutely, positively, NO morally sufficient reasons to kill someone. If that is what you think, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

You are imputing to me a belief I don't hold. We are discussing God's command to kill Isaac not some Kantian categorical imperative. There are times when it may be correct to kill but that's a film in another cinema.

We can talk about why God would have commanded Abraham to do such a thing..that is a discussion to be had...however, I am still trying to figure out where you are getting this sense of "x is evil" from?

I get it from the same civilised source as you - we have reached this point in civilisation where we don't go out and kill kids. You thank God for telling you this; I attribute it to emergent sophistication. Man makes progress. We no longer - most of us - behave like animals. You seem surprised by this but I think the dictionary calls it civilised behaviour. It wasn't always with us.


And no - we don't act in one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday; we have a firm idea about killing. We are also sophisticated enough to determine when an act of killing may be right. Introducing God to overrule our civilised laws is dangerous, as we see in some of our city streets where God apparently is great. God does not tell us that it's wrong to murder a child; as civilised humans, we do.

I hope this clarifies the point for you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I see - you just misunderstood the sentence.

Um, what didn't I understand, sir? Here I am talking about a hypothethical, and here you are taking it literal.

I know "the world of course holds no consensus"..you were the one who the "world" as a reference point (standard)...I merely pointed out what would happen IF it (morality) was all left up to the world.

The rules governing lions or ants are not those governing humans. So your example has no application.

Um, yes it does have application. These "rules" that you are referring to is just another word for "standard", which is the word that I used. You can certainly point out the different "rules" and regulations of each kind of "wild" animal...but guess what, you can do the same for each kind of "civilized" animal (humans).

Either way, the question is still; where do these rules come from, and how are we to find the intrinsic truth value in these morals values? Why is X action wrong? Why is it right? Says who?

That question remains unanswered...and there is no answer on naturalism.

Because you have persuaded yourself that God issued the moral code perhaps on some mountain is no reason to require that this view be universally accepted. I can accept that early man did not share our morality, not because God had overslept, but because we had not reached a particular level of civilisation. We may have come to a civilised set of standards first from self interest, but we have evolved a way of looking at actions and seeing some as wrong and some as altruistic. It is unnecessary to speculate divine intervention.

Right. Just as I said. You take God out of it, and we are back at subjectivity, which still doesn't answer my question.

You are imputing to me a belief I don't hold. We are discussing God's command to kill Isaac not some Kantian categorical imperative. There are times when it may be correct to kill but that's a film in another cinema.

What?? Imputing to you a belief you don't hold? Aren't you implying that God's command to kill Issac is "wrong", and thus God has not morally sufficient reason for giving such command?

Isn't that what you are implying? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then how can you dare say that I got all wrong...and if the answer is no, then what exactly are you saying? Why are we having this discussion?

I assumed there was a point of contention there and if there wasn't, then your point is rather...pointless.

I get it from the same civilised source as you - we have reached this point in civilisation where we don't go out and kill kids.

This same "civilised" source may also one day tell us that slavery is ok (as it once did).

So I ask again, should civilization dictate right/wrong?

You thank God for telling you this; I attribute it to emergent sophistication. Man makes progress. We no longer - most of us - behave like animals.

But we are animals, aren't we? If we are animals, why not behave like animals?

And no - we don't act in one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday; we have a firm idea about killing. We are also sophisticated enough to determine when an act of killing may be right. Introducing God to overrule our civilised laws is dangerous, as we see in some of our city streets where God apparently is great. God does not tell us that it's wrong to murder a child; as civilised humans, we do.

I hope this clarifies the point for you.

Your point is; whatever civilization tells us is right, is right. That's what I got out of it.

[marco]

Your point is; whatever civilization tells us is right, is right. That's what I got out of it.

There is a danger of rambling repetitively, you saying God told you while I maintain that we have evolved our rules on moral matters. For some reason you think that there is a problem with society saying this is a crime or that is a good action. Perhaps you feel God should appear in court, not judges.


Morality is the convenience of man; stealing harms us all, so stealing is generally wrong. We don't want our children arbitrarily slaughtered - so it is declared wrong. The Romans did not see slavery as wrong; we do and that illustrates how morality evolves. We once killed homosexuals, since we thought the Bible was a good book; now we have learned to think for ourselves on that matter. Strange how the introduction of God not infrequently introduces the idea that atrocities are acceptable. Here we are in the situation where a command has been given to kill a child and astoundingly we are being asked to say why should this be considered wrong. A morality derived from the welfare of people seems a better one.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 77 by marco]

um, macro..morality without God is subjective, regardless.

[marco]

[Replying to post 77 by marco]

um, macro..morality without God is subjective, regardless.

And that is a problem? I suppose when we interpret subjectivity to mean that morality is a quagmire of constant alteration, then we would be in a very unstable society. That is not the case; our rules, our way of judging, have emerged from the darkest times of arbitrary killing and even cannibalism.

If it is argued that we each carry a moral code, this is patently false, since the diversity speaks more to an evolved system than one written on our souls. It is a question of morality as to when a person is old enough to marry; this varies, even among God-serving folk.


Aside from all this, we are using what morality we understand, be it evolved or innately understood, to examine a command to kill a child. My view is this command was an invention of Yahweh's creators. That makes sense. The explanation that it was a "test" or a game is nonsensical unless we endow God with an adolescent brain.