Would you sacrifice your own son like Abraham was ready to

[Jagella]

I was studying Hebrews 11 today which praises people of faith. Verses 17-19 of that chapter lauds Abraham's obedience to God as Abraham was ready to murder his own son Isaac. (The original grotesque tale appears in Genesis 22.)

Would you murder your own son if God asked you to?

Yes--Well, this answer speaks for itself.

No--Then you admit that your religion is immoral.

I think I have faith of my own that none of the Christians here will give a straight, honest answer to this question. You will stonewall and do everything you can to divert attention away from this issue. You know that your religion is immoral but will never admit it.

[Jagella]

Would you murder your own son if God asked you to?

First off I'd be shocked that God, well... actually did something. As soon as a gathered my senses, I'd grab my son and run explaining to him that the bizarre stories we've heard of this murderous monster might be true. "Run, hide!"

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[OnceConvinced]

My point is that YHVH did not command the sacrifice, because human sacrifice is sin, and God does not tempt anyone to sin.

But yet he endorsed the human sacrifice of his own son. Jesus went right along with it. That must mean Jesus was sinning when he acted as a lamb and allowed himself to be crucified.

Salvation itself revolves around the human sacrifice of Jesus. God put it in place so that it would be the ultimate sacrifice, meaning that animal sacrifices were no longer needed. So if human sacrifice is a sin, then the god of the bible is guilty, guilty, guilty.

[OnceConvinced]

(I have only read the first post)

I dont believe the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac is immoral... Clearly God didnt even want this to happen, to kill Isaac... That would be like saying any one who jokes around about "killing", is guilty of murder, and is immoral...

It's one thing to joke around, it's another to play twisted mind games, which is what God did here. Would you put people through such horrors yourself? Have them think that they are going to have to brutally slaughter their one and only child?

Granted this wasnt a joke by God, but what is the intention? Is it to kill Isaac? Clearly its not... Or else Isaac would have been killed, and not stopped from being killed by God...

Actually, far as im concerned, the story of Isaac and Abraham is meant to point to Jesus as the Messiah, Gods only begotten Son, and His death...

The story of Isaac is actually meant to point to Jesus as the Christ... And Jesus, revealed the righteousness of God, when he was put to death, while praying for the forgiveness of those killing him....

I'm sure the Jews who wrote this story would disagree with you.

This story reflects the pinnacle of righteousness...

It shows me a very twisted god who puts people through cruel games just to make a point and to teach a lesson.

[liamconnor]

I was studying Hebrews 11 today which praises people of faith. Verses 17-19 of that chapter lauds Abraham's obedience to God as Abraham was ready to murder his own son Isaac. (The original grotesque tale appears in Genesis 22.)

Would you murder your own son if God asked you to?

Yes--Well, this answer speaks for itself.

No--Then you admit that your religion is immoral.

I think I have faith of my own that none of the Christians here will give a straight, honest answer to this question. You will stonewall and do everything you can to divert attention away from this issue. You know that your religion is immoral but will never admit it.

No.

But then I live in a dispensation of God's revelation where this is known to be something God would not command; I know, via other means, that all I am and all I have belongs to God; and that only by yielding all to him can I truly possess all.


Abraham lived in a time when human sacrifice was not absurd. The son he had was not merely of sentimental value, but of a value which we modernors cannot quite appreciate. The closest we can come to is "of everlasting value". That is, an ancient person believed he "lived on" through his offspring.

The command to Abraham was thus to see if Abraham was willing to give all, ALL, to God. Those who object to even this obviously do not understand the most fundamental of spiritual realities.

If God allowed the command to be fully carried through, this would be barbaric. As the story has it, however, God stops ABraham; thereby testing Abraham and demonstrating himself as one who does not truly command such sacrifice.

The spiritual lesson is profound and healthy, worthy of, and echoed in, some of the greatest poets: "Those who wish to save their lives will lose it; those who would lose it, will gain it". Behind this is a principle of life that goes beyond mere eternal salvation.

At any rate, only by yielding back to God all earthly promises can Abraham truly retain these earthly promises. The manifestation of this test was contextualized: a context where child-sacrifice was not unheard of and might be demanded.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 94 by liamconnor]

Abraham lived in a time when human sacrifice was not absurd. The son he had was not merely of sentimental value, but of a value which we modernors cannot quite appreciate. The closest we can come to is "of everlasting value". That is, an ancient person believed he "lived on" through his offspring.

I don't believe that I would 'live on' through my offspring (if I had any)...but are you suggesting that modern people value their children less?
I wouldn't.

Those who object to even this obviously do not understand the most fundamental of spiritual realities.

Here you are assuming that the only spiritual realities possible are the ones you believe in.
I'm of the persuasion that if there were a god, he would never ask anyone to sacrifice their son, irrespective of the culture they are in.

If God allowed the command to be fully carried through, this would be barbaric. As the story has it, however, God stops ABraham; thereby testing Abraham and demonstrating himself as one who does not truly command such sacrifice.

I'm going to have to ask you whether you think that a command is 'truly given' if at the last second its counter-manded?
Note that this question does NOT allow for a different answer depending on who it is who is doing the commanding.
If a general commands a soldier to fire at an enemy, and then says hold your fire at the last second, does this mean he never gave the original command?

The spiritual lesson is profound and healthy, worthy of, and echoed in, some of the greatest poets: "Those who wish to save their lives will lose it; those who would lose it, will gain it". Behind this is a principle of life that goes beyond mere eternal salvation.

That may be what you get from that line, from whoever it was who said it, but that is not an objective meaning.

The manifestation of this test was contextualized: a context where child-sacrifice was not unheard of and might be demanded.

So what I'm getting from this (and from others who have replied) is that the types of commands or kinds of commands God gives out to people...somehow depend on the culture of the day?

Did Abraham require other tests for other practices that you, I and your god would find despicable?
Did God tell Abraham to steal, then counter-mand it?
Did God tell Abraham to rape a woman, then counter-mand it?

I know, via other means, that all I am and all I have belongs to God; and that only by yielding all to him can I truly possess all.

Can yielding to God only be accomplished by (almost) sacrificing your relatives? Weren't there other people in the Old Testament who were given/yielded/dedicated to God without them having to go through a sacrificial ritual charade?
I recall from the OT that the prophet Samuel was dedicated by his mother to God as a Nazirite.

[jgh7]

Well, my answer is a bit specific. Hypothetically if I 100% knew it was God talking to me and I had absolute faith in the goodness of God, I would only sacrifice my son if I could do it in a painless way. I would not slit my son's throat and let him bleed and suffocate to death.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 94 by liamconnor]

The command to Abraham was thus to see if Abraham was willing to give all, ALL, to God. Those who object to even this obviously do not understand the most fundamental of spiritual realities.

Yes, Abraham was tested to see if he'd give his "all" to God and that included the life of his own son. Don't you see how immoral it is to have allegiance to any authority to the point of murdering your own child?

Abraham failed the test. He should have said no.

If God allowed the command to be fully carried through, this would be barbaric.

He was barbaric just commanding the murder.

[bluethread]

Well, my answer is a bit specific. Hypothetically if I 100% knew it was God talking to me and I had absolute faith in the goodness of God, I would only sacrifice my son if I could do it in a painless way. I would not slit my son's throat and let him bleed and suffocate to death.

Done properly, your son would not bleed and suffocate to death. He would be dead in 2 seconds. This is not to promote efficient homicide, it is just to explain that the proper killing of any mammal is not a long drawn out process.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 76 by William]

Perhaps a good start is not to use abrahamic religious labels by calling child abuse 'evil' and instead use a more secular phrase, such as 'mentally unstable'?

A common misconception of atheists is that since we have no basis for morality, then we cannot judge anything as good or evil. An atheist can judge good and evil using reason and by appealing to commonly accepted morality. That's what I'm doing on this thread; I'm judging Abrahamic child abuse as evil because it does much harm and violates the commonly held moral tenet that child abuse is wrong.

Tha commonly accepted morality in Avraham's time was child sacrifice. That is the point of the story. Is one to go with the commonly accepted morality of one's time, or with the morality that is directed by a deity? Commonly accepted morality, otherwise known as natural morality, is quite gruesome, if one looks at the natural behavior of primates.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 99 by bluethread]

Is one to go with the commonly accepted morality of one's time, or with the morality that is directed by a deity?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Theistic morality might be commonly accepted. I usually observe commonly accepted morality regardless of any religious basis it might have. Since I don't believe in any gods, naturally I don't look to any of them for morality. As I see it, the gods are created by people which is immoral to begin with. So why would I accept the "morality" of such hucksters?