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?

[bluethread]

The passage is among the most problematic in the Scriptures. Given the it was the custom of the time among the nations, I see this as attest to see if Avram was as dedicated to Adonai, to the same extent that others were dedicated to their deities. The outcome is significant, because it set a president that this practice was not acceptable.

[marco]

The passage is among the most problematic in the Scriptures. Given the it was the custom of the time among the nations, I see this as attest to see if Avram was as dedicated to Adonai, to the same extent that others were dedicated to their deities. The outcome is significant, because it set a president that this practice was not acceptable.

Yes, I know the various excuses given for the problematic command. Basically the question is: Should we do evil in God's name or at God's apparent request? Apparently we should, relying on God to stop us at the last moment. No thought is given to poor Isaac who seems no more important than a dove or pigeon.

God presumably knows the hearts of all and his "test" was therefore pointless; but it told people that it is right to do evil if we think God commands it. In this light butchery, burning and beheadings seem reasonable. I would like to have read the preferable text where Abraham says simply: "It is wrong, my Lord, to kill. If you desire my death, or my son's, you have the means to achieve it."

[JehovahsWitness]

[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.

[marco]

[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 the only way one can argue here and it is a bad way for it allows us to accept the unacceptable. In this line, where we refuse to condemn any act, we can come to terms with any atrocity; we can make excuses for beheading women or burying children alive. As humans we must be able to say that an act is good or bad. We can and do, of course, except in those difficult cases where our cherished faith is put on trial. We are then lost for good words.

Thanks at least for replying to this difficult problem.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

"Unacceptable" according to whom? "atrocious" according to whom? You are just restating something according to a premise that has not been established. That is my point, in order to say something is "right" or "wrong" "unacceptable" or "autrocious" some kind of baseline must be established. Unless you are arguing for a universal absolute standard (in which case present it), what you are really saying is "unacceptable" to me, "atrocious" to me. That is not debatable, you feelings are your own.

In short either you are estblishing your feelings as the standard by which all judgement of the question must be measured or you are leaving the premise unestablished. In either case the question cannot objectively be debated.

I presented no arugument one way or the other and am not stating that I have no opinion on the question, but the OP doesn't ask for opinions (or beliefs) it asks if an given action as reported was right. I believe you know enough about debating to know as stated you OP is based on a premise that has not been presented and if the premise does not have to be proven it has at least to be clarified.


JW

[McCulloch]

"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

I disagree with your assertion regarding general agreement of rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[JehovahsWitness]

"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

I disagree with your assertion regarding general agreement of rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A) RIGHTS: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

B) RIGHT:
1: righteous, upright
2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper right conduct
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

I presumed the OP was discussing whether a given action was right (the adjective - see above (a)) not about RIGHTS (the noun - see above (b)). In any case I appreciate Mr Jerfersson and his compatriots views on (b) and feel confident that we all know the difference between universal and american; that is unless America is the universe.

I believe there are whole threads devoted to the debunking of the idea that the idea of "right" or "wrong" is anything but an opinion. LINK
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 917#857917


JW

[McCulloch]

What a difference a letter makes.

Rights is plural; a right is singular.
We use the same word to describe ethical principles of freedom or entitlement and what is just, good, or proper right conduct. Perhaps that is because the ultimate proper right conduct is that which supports ethical principles of freedom or entitlement.

[myth-one.com]

But God told Abraham to murder Isaac.

I think we've been through this before.

God did not tell Abraham to murder Isaac.

He told Abraham to "offer him for a burnt offering."

And Abraham did so.