God asking you to sacrifice your own child?

poisongirl6485

I don't know why I get myself into these debates on Facebook, but one of my colleagues/friends posted the question:

"What would you have done if God asked you to make the sacrifice Abraham was asked? (Genesis 22:1-19)"

I said that I would assume I was crazy if I were hearing voices in my head and seek help.

What concerns me is that this was another response, mainly directed at what I said about hearing voices:

"Not if believe cuz he talks to me everyday the lord have his own way doing thing put member God also sacrifice his child so I would"

WTF?!?!?! Seriously is SCARY that people would consider murdering their own child because they think God told them to do it. Andrea Yates drowned all of her kids and claimed God told her to do that, too.

TL; DR: People are effing CRAZY.

BrettPGH

It's one of my usual atheist "talking points". There is nothing to be admired or worshipped about what Abraham did. Any God who would ask such a thing would have to be off his rocker, quite frankly. Also it shows a real blind spot in this God's supposed all knowing side...

As always, Hitch says it best. (and I'm going to have to apologize now but I have very strong feelings about being told to kill my kid to prove my loyalty)

"If I were asked to do what all monotheists do and worship the man who said "Yes I'll gut my kid for you." I'd say "No, F#<% you!"

It's a wicked teaching, it teaches to worship the church above all else, even family. Because no God did this. There are people out there today who have killed their children because God told them to. Usually it's just because they're suffering from extreme post partum depression. We don't praise these people, we lock them up.

It's not a message from God and if it is he's an even worse character than I previously thought.

ninerbuff

What makes me laugh is that somehow people of religion don't think that there were mentally screwed up people back then. Hello? Maybe these same mentally challenged people had input on their bible?


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

adrian_indy

You guys are just being ignorant and taking the whole story out of context. Shoving rusty knives into your child's gut to show love to a ghost was just common back then, you have no right to judge.

adrian_indy

You guys are just being ignorant and taking the whole story out of context. Shoving rusty knives into your child's gut to show love to a ghost was just common back then, you have no right to judge.

BrettPGH

Hehehe..


Wish I could move this thread to our atheist group. I don't think anyone else wants to play along but us non-believers.

california_peach

I'll play. I am a believer, but I'm gonna disappoint you. I would not harm my child or any child based on the what a voice in my head told me to do, even if that voice identified himself as God. I am a Christian, specifically a Catholic and I don't take the Old Testament literally anymore then I take the story of Kronos eating his chldren literally. To me, the stories in the Old Testament are parables meant to teach. That story was probably meant to encourage obedience to God. It obviously did not work on me.

SkateboardFi

I'll play. I am a believer, but I'm gonna disappoint you. I would not harm my child or any child based on the what a voice in my head told me to do, even if that voice identified himself as God. I am a Christian, specifically a Catholic and I don't take the Old Testament literally anymore then I take the story of Kronos eating his chldren literally. To me, the stories in the Old Testament are parables meant to teach. That story was probably meant to encourage obedience to God. It obviously did not work on me.

well said, i like how this was put.

BrettPGH

I'll play. I am a believer, but I'm gonna disappoint you. I would not harm my child or any child based on the what a voice in my head told me to do, even if that voice identified himself as God. I am a Christian, specifically a Catholic and I don't take the Old Testament literally anymore then I take the story of Kronos eating his chldren literally. To me, the stories in the Old Testament are parables meant to teach. That story was probably meant to encourage obedience to God. It obviously did not work on me.

Thanks for saying that. It's never a disappointment when someone thoughtfully joins in the debate.

lovejoydavid

I actually did not see this thread! I only follow the "my topics" as I have a few too many discussions going on. So as to show some respect, I will pull out a few stops for this.

Isaac was a child born from a miracle. His father, Abraham, actually walked and talked with the God that committed that miracle. Further, Isaac was a child with a destiny, for God had already told Abraham that his lineage would be great, and it would be counted through Isaac. So, now, after these miracles, and these prophecies, God tells Abraham to sacrifice the boy. What is Abraham to believe?

According to Hebrews:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

Abraham offered the boy to the creator of the Universe (whom He personally knew), but expected Him to return Isaac to him. Now oddly enough, God did not actually take the boy, and in Levitical law would not only prohibit child sacrifice, but would order death for those that performed it. Later, Christ would state that children are, in fact, the model by which all mankind may be saved. In fact, the sense by which we are offended by the idea of a child sacrifice has been formed by this Judeo-Christian heritage of valuing children. Don’t believe me? What has secularism offered you on kids? The notion that, on the altar of personal liberty, millions of unborn children could be justifiably killed, and that you should personally view such a notion as progress.

As such, in the face of a single child sacrifice (that did not actually end of happening) versus millions of sacrificed children in our contemporary neonaticide, what am I to find to compel me to embrace secularism?

lovejoydavid

You guys are just being ignorant and taking the whole story out of context. Shoving rusty knives into your child's gut to show love to a ghost was just common back then, you have no right to judge.

Child sacrifice was common, especially in the region. It was Levitical law that put a stop to it. I submt, though, that it is that heritage that does allow you to judge such a thing. Considering that we, as a secular people, have decided that it is legal and proper that children should be non-people till birth.

lovejoydavid

I don't know why I get myself into these debates on Facebook, but one of my colleagues/friends posted the question:

"What would you have done if God asked you to make the sacrifice Abraham was asked? (Genesis 22:1-19)"

I said that I would assume I was crazy if I were hearing voices in my head and seek help.

What concerns me is that this was another response, mainly directed at what I said about hearing voices:

"Not if believe cuz he talks to me everyday the lord have his own way doing thing put member God also sacrifice his child so I would"

WTF?!?!?! Seriously is SCARY that people would consider murdering their own child because they think God told them to do it. Andrea Yates drowned all of her kids and claimed God told her to do that, too.

TL; DR: People are effing CRAZY.

The Adrea Yates issue was truly awful, and I honestly think they did the right thing in moving her to a low security mental hospital on appeal. In fact, Texas has since has a few proposals to alter the law to limit prosecutable time in the case of documentable post partum depression. Sadly, it is not necessary that, for one to be religious, one must reject the help of professional medical persons. I suppose, at the least, her case (and a few others) brought much more light on the plight of undersupported and mentally ill postpartum women.

And, for the record, the notion of God asking you to kill your child is not a biblical one. The opposite is true. If someone hears a voice that says otherwise, they should immediately seek psychiatric care.

poisongirl6485

And, for the record, the notion of God asking you to kill your child is not a biblical one. The opposite is true. If someone hears a voice that says otherwise, they should immediately seek psychiatric care.

So you're saying the story of Abraham being asked by God to kill his son that is IN THE BIBLE isn't Biblical? Say what?

BrettPGH

And, for the record, the notion of God asking you to kill your child is not a biblical one. The opposite is true. If someone hears a voice that says otherwise, they should immediately seek psychiatric care.

So you're saying the story of Abraham being asked by God to kill his son that is IN THE BIBLE isn't Biblical? Say what?

Eh you just have to replace the reality of "prepared to stab his son to death with a blade" with the much kinder sounding "offered his son to God". It sounds almost sweet at that point.

lovejoydavid

And, for the record, the notion of God asking you to kill your child is not a biblical one. The opposite is true. If someone hears a voice that says otherwise, they should immediately seek psychiatric care.

So you're saying the story of Abraham being asked by God to kill his son that is IN THE BIBLE isn't Biblical? Say what?

The point is that God did not accept, and will not accept, the actual sacrifice of our children. As God had already promised Isaac a future, and was in bound in covenant with Abraham, it was a test as to Abrahams faith in the ressurection (as pointed out in Hebrews later). Isaac lived, and had children. Those that actually kill their children (which was outlawed in the strongest possible terms in leviticus, isaiah, deuteronomy, etc) in the name of God clearly were not listening to God.

lovejoydavid

Eh you just have to replace the reality of "prepared to stab his son to death with a blade" with the much kinder sounding "offered his son to God". It sounds almost sweet at that point.

We don't need to 'closet' the terms, and we certainly shall not attempt to hide from the implications. He was going to sacrifice his son, and it was a legit offer. It was not, however, a real request. It was test of faith, and one I would have 'failed' wildly (mostly as I would not believe it, given subsequent revelation.)

However, just as I am going to attempt to grapple with this (and the massacre of the caananites, kids killed by God controlled bears, et cetera), I ask you to do the same. If we, as a secular society, arbitrarily and with special pleading, designate a point in which not but personal liberty is able to overrule the sanctity of life, why cannot the immortal creator and ruler of the universe pick any point he wants to do the same, and for whatever reason?

BrettPGH

The point is that God did not accept, and will not accept, the actual sacrifice of our children. As God had already promised Isaac a future, and was in bound in covenant with Abraham, it was a test as to Abrahams faith in the ressurection (as pointed out in Hebrews later). Isaac lived, and had children. Those that actually kill their children (which was outlawed in the strongest possible terms in leviticus, isaiah, deuteronomy, etc) in the name of God clearly were not listening to God.

If it was to be a test of faith in ressurection why not have Abraham go ahead and kill his child so he could then be resurrected? As it stands it really seems like a cruel practical joke (especially the part where an angel swoops down to replace Isaac with a side of roast beef, I mean I know a gag when I hear one.)

BrettPGH

We don't need to 'closet' the terms, and we certainly shall not attempt to hide from the implications. He was going to sacrifice his son, and it was a legit offer. It was not, however, a real request. It was test of faith, and one I would have 'failed' wildly (mostly as I would not believe it, given subsequent revelation.)

However, just as I am going to attempt to grapple with this (and the massacre of the caananites, kids killed by God controlled bears, et cetera), I ask you to do the same. If we, as a secular society, arbitrarily and with special pleading, designate a point in which not but personal liberty is able to overrule the sanctity of life, why cannot the immortal creator and ruler of the universe pick any point he wants to do the same, and for whatever reason?

I really don't think it's fair to link abortion and Abraham. Abortion isn't just "picking any random point" in a child's life to kill them. It's exclusively before birth. In all cases. Most people agree that "birth" is a pretty big deal in a person's life. Not just an arbitrary point.

Also just because human beings engage in some behavior doesn't make it acceptable for an omnipotent deity who created all existence. Forgive me but I would hold such a creator to a much higher standard.

lovejoydavid

I really don't think it's fair to link abortion and Abraham. Abortion isn't just "picking any random point" in a child's life to kill them. It's exclusively before birth. In all cases. Most people agree that "birth" is a pretty big deal in a person's life. Not just an arbitrary point.

If you read the "conception" thread in this forum, you will see the case I laid out for why it is special pleading. I won't repeat here, except to say that birth is an inadequate justification for personhood. Heck, prior to modern medicine, it was the first 24 hours after birth (which is why abortion is just high tech neonaticide, in which we have improved medicine, but play act as if it were an ethical stride). The connection is that we have both decided that it is our will to end a life that has done not to merit death, and have justified it. The difference in this case (other than the fact that God did not go though with it), is that God based it on the perogative of His being the creator of the race of man, we do it based on the ambiguity of the status of the unborn in the face of someone's personal liberty. We both make radical judgements about the dignity of others, and called it our right.

Also just because human beings engage in some behavior doesn't make it acceptable for an omnipotent deity who created all existence. Forgive me but I would hold such a creator to a much higher standard.

I assume you mean to say that this action indicates that He is not good, and therefore He cannot be God? We are stuck deciding if we are capable of asserting that this God is not good enough, and that based on something higher than this putative god? And what would that be? The only credibility that we have to judge such a being is based on those very behaviours mentioned. As such, we have no credibility, most of us take almost no action to alleviate evil in the world, and some of actively cause it. We don't love much, or well. Instead, we have to rationalize our way to 'good,' hoping that our rhetorical stabs are more of a substantial offering than they seem even to us.

The fact is, God did not let father kill son in this case, and has never asked it of anyone as a sacrifice (though He let us kill His own at a later date, of which this was foreshadowing). That does not mean that He has never taken life, or commanded others to do it. Clearly, the bible states that He has. It is up to us to decide if His right is compelling, if His omniscience and nature can justify it. However, only in terms of our willingness to believe in Him. We cannot hold Him to task, or try Him, as it were. Our judgement is meaningless, except in terms of our faith. I actually think that most of that perspicacity, that moral acumen, that most of do demonstrate (God given, to my mind) is best applied elsewhere. Condemning God is jousting at windmills. Though, of course, I understand that it is primarly an atheistic apologetic aimed at believers.

adrian_indy

I really don't think it's fair to link abortion and Abraham. Abortion isn't just "picking any random point" in a child's life to kill them. It's exclusively before birth. In all cases. Most people agree that "birth" is a pretty big deal in a person's life. Not just an arbitrary point.

If you read the "conception" thread in this forum, you will see the case I laid out for why it is special pleading. I won't repeat here, except to say that birth is an inadequate justification for personhood. Heck, prior to modern medicine, it was the first 24 hours after birth (which is why abortion is just high tech neonaticide, in which we have improved medicine, but play act as if it were an ethical stride). The connection is that we have both decided that it is our will to end a life that has done not to merit death, and have justified it. The difference in this case (other than the fact that God did not go though with it), is that God based it on the perogative of His being the creator of the race of man, we do it based on the ambiguity of the status of the unborn in the face of someone's personal liberty. We both make radical judgements about the dignity of others, and called it our right.

Also just because human beings engage in some behavior doesn't make it acceptable for an omnipotent deity who created all existence. Forgive me but I would hold such a creator to a much higher standard.

I assume you mean to say that this action indicates that He is not good, and therefore He cannot be God? We are stuck deciding if we are capable of asserting that this God is not good enough, and that based on something higher than this putative god? And what would that be? The only credibility that we have to judge such a being is based on those very behaviours mentioned. As such, we have no credibility, most of us take almost no action to alleviate evil in the world, and some of actively cause it. We don't love much, or well. Instead, we have to rationalize our way to 'good,' hoping that our rhetorical stabs are more of a substantial offering than they seem even to us.

The fact is, God did not let father kill son in this case, and has never asked it of anyone as a sacrifice (though He let us kill His own at a later date, of which this was foreshadowing). That does not mean that He has never taken life, or commanded others to do it. Clearly, the bible states that He has. It is up to us to decide if His right is compelling, if His omniscience and nature can justify it. However, only in terms of our willingness to believe in Him. We cannot hold Him to task, or try Him, as it were. Our judgement is meaningless, except in terms of our faith. I actually think that most of that perspicacity, that moral acumen, that most of do demonstrate (God given, to my mind) is best applied elsewhere. Condemning God is jousting at windmills. Though, of course, I understand that it is primarly an atheistic apologetic aimed at believers.

I agree. Slaves should never question their masters. Bad for business.

poisongirl6485

And, for the record, the notion of God asking you to kill your child is not a biblical one. The opposite is true. If someone hears a voice that says otherwise, they should immediately seek psychiatric care.

So you're saying the story of Abraham being asked by God to kill his son that is IN THE BIBLE isn't Biblical? Say what?

The point is that God did not accept, and will not accept, the actual sacrifice of our children. As God had already promised Isaac a future, and was in bound in covenant with Abraham, it was a test as to Abrahams faith in the ressurection (as pointed out in Hebrews later). Isaac lived, and had children. Those that actually kill their children (which was outlawed in the strongest possible terms in leviticus, isaiah, deuteronomy, etc) in the name of God clearly were not listening to God.

Any 'god' that asks someone to kill their child as a 'test' or other wise is NOT a god that deserves any form of worship.

adrian_indy

I know that as a atheist, believers can't believe that I can have a moral foundation based on intelligence, empathy and life experiences, but indulge me. If it's ok for people to murder if God tells them to, could some one please inform me of their criteria to be met by prophet, messiah, or holy person calling for murder/genocide to make it legit in their eyes?

Now, we all know we are never going to see Jesus come back. We are never going to see a miracle like a ressurrection or an amputated limb grow back...nothing, nada, never. No supernatural, no magic, no miracles. But let's say I'm wrong. It's all true, and there is a force greater than ourself out there. What if some mystical guy comes back and does something miraculous like raises a whole generation of people from the dead. Then he declares that Norway is the new holy land and it must be cleansed. Since it's god commanding it, is it ok to start clubbing wegians like baby seals?

SInce we live in a world with some a colorful history of genocidal maniacs and their followers who have used God's name to authorize wholesale slaughter, how do we know who is right? If we are saying that God's authority is absolute and he is above human judgement such as my own pitiful atheist view that curb stomping Caananite babies is bad, I just would like to know what the believers who contiunally and laughably defend this garbage would like to see happen before they begin a killing spree at their lord's behest. If he makes the Statue of Liberty disappear Copperfield style and then says, "Let's kill the Swahili!" Are you in?

lovejoydavid

Any 'god' that asks someone to kill their child as a 'test' or other wise is NOT a god that deserves any form of worship.

And it is, of course, entirely your right to feel that way! I merely present my perspective on the event.

lovejoydavid

I agree. Slaves should never question their masters. Bad for business.

I am the slave of a make believe master, you are a slave to a dogma of reality. What difference does it make?

adrian_indy

I agree. Slaves should never question their masters. Bad for business.

I am the slave of a make believe master, you are a slave to a dogma of reality. What difference does it make?

The difference is my make believe master doesn't commit genocide nor does it justify it.

lovejoydavid

I know that as a atheist, believers can't believe that I can have a moral foundation based on intelligence, empathy and life experiences, but indulge me. If it's ok for people to murder if God tells them to, could some one please inform me of their criteria to be met by prophet, messiah, or holy person calling for murder/genocide to make it legit in their eyes?

They would need to find a way to undo the cross, and bring back the law.

Now, we all know we are never going to see Jesus come back.

Preterists agree with you, I do not.

We are never going to see a miracle like a ressurrection or an amputated limb grow back...nothing, nada, never. No supernatural, no magic, no miracles.

Cessationists agree with you, I do not.

But let's say I'm wrong. It's all true, and there is a force greater than ourself out there. What if some mystical guy comes back and does something miraculous like raises a whole generation of people from the dead. Then he declares that Norway is the new holy land and it must be cleansed. Since it's god commanding it, is it ok to start clubbing wegians like baby seals?

No, that person would be deemed the antichrist, or one of his immediate forebears.

SInce we live in a world with some a colorful history of genocidal maniacs and their followers who have used God's name

Or atheism

to authorize wholesale slaughter, how do we know who is right?

Prior to the advent of Christianity, Roman Law included patria potestas, the right of a father to kill his own children. Only after Chrisians took power was this struck down. Materialists, on the other hand, have found it convenient to put the unborn on that same chopping block, only at the whim of the mother. That is the only wholesale slaughter I see, and it is now. Christians have ever been the defender of Children, and it is mosaic law that we base that on.

If we are saying that God's authority is absolute and he is above human judgement such as my own pitiful atheist view that curb stomping Caananite babies is bad, I just would like to know what the believers who contiunally and laughably defend this garbage

The laughable person would be the one that needs the ad hominem and strawman to make an argument.

would like to see happen before they begin a killing spree at their lord's behest. If he makes the Statue of Liberty disappear Copperfield style and then says, "Let's kill the Swahili!" Are you in?

Nope,

lovejoydavid

The difference is my make believe master doesn't commit genocide nor does it justify it.

Neither does mine. He does not exist!

adrian_indy

I know that as a atheist, believers can't believe that I can have a moral foundation based on intelligence, empathy and life experiences, but indulge me. If it's ok for people to murder if God tells them to, could some one please inform me of their criteria to be met by prophet, messiah, or holy person calling for murder/genocide to make it legit in their eyes?

They would need to find a way to undo the cross, and bring back the law.

Now, we all know we are never going to see Jesus come back.

Preterists agree with you, I do not.

We are never going to see a miracle like a ressurrection or an amputated limb grow back...nothing, nada, never. No supernatural, no magic, no miracles.

Cessationists agree with you, I do not.

But let's say I'm wrong. It's all true, and there is a force greater than ourself out there. What if some mystical guy comes back and does something miraculous like raises a whole generation of people from the dead. Then he declares that Norway is the new holy land and it must be cleansed. Since it's god commanding it, is it ok to start clubbing wegians like baby seals?

No, that person would be deemed the antichrist, or one of his immediate forebears.

SInce we live in a world with some a colorful history of genocidal maniacs and their followers who have used God's name

Or atheism

to authorize wholesale slaughter, how do we know who is right?

Prior to the advent of Christianity, Roman Law included patria potestas, the right of a father to kill his own children. Only after Chrisians took power was this struck down. Materialists, on the other hand, have found it convenient to put the unborn on that same chopping block, only at the whim of the mother. That is the only wholesale slaughter I see, and it is now. Christians have ever been the defender of Children, and it is mosaic law that we base that on.

If we are saying that God's authority is absolute and he is above human judgement such as my own pitiful atheist view that curb stomping Caananite babies is bad, I just would like to know what the believers who contiunally and laughably defend this garbage

The laughable person would be the one that needs the ad hominem and strawman to make an argument.

would like to see happen before they begin a killing spree at their lord's behest. If he makes the Statue of Liberty disappear Copperfield style and then says, "Let's kill the Swahili!" Are you in?

Nope,

So we are going to see miracles and Jesus return in our time. Can't wait to see that! And abortion...really? I find it strange that you would bring that into this since atheism doesn't equate pro-choice. Must be one of those strawmen arguments you were talking about.

And yes, Christians have been great defenders of children, unless your priests just so happen to rape one, then it's time for the massive cover up.

And last, and I'm not backing down from this, since you have stated that god never errs, and that we cannot be in judgement when god tells us to slaughter, no matter how fanciful your answer is, you are advocating that if certain conditions are met, you have no problem with genocide. See, it worries me that you seem to think that you will see Jesus in your day, and that, I guess means we are in the end times. So when the good ole Christians get fired up and start the battle against the "anti-Christ", I tend to get a little worried since I know that unbelievers and heretics tend to be the first to burn.

adrian_indy

The difference is my make believe master doesn't commit genocide nor does it justify it.

Neither does mine. He does not exist!

Great, so we agree.

poisongirl6485

The difference is my make believe master doesn't commit genocide nor does it justify it.

Neither does mine. He does not exist!

Your beliefs confuse me. You say you believe in Jesus and are Christian, yet you don't believe in Biblical scripture. If you don't believe in what the Bible states, then how do you presume to believe what the Bible does state about Jesus is true?

lovejoydavid

The difference is my make believe master doesn't commit genocide nor does it justify it.

Neither does mine. He does not exist!

Your beliefs confuse me. You say you believe in Jesus and are Christian, yet you don't believe in Biblical scripture. If you don't believe in what the Bible states, then how do you presume to believe what the Bible does state about Jesus is true?

No no, that was just a deflection. The attack was from an atheist, who was 'personalizing" the judgements and action of God, yet under the impression that God does not exist. So I simply agreed to agree. Most of the attacks against scripture, as well, are based simply on 20th century fundamentalist views of scripture, a blip in church history.