I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 458
#331
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,427
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying - whenever I say objective - I am speaking of something that is true independent from any minds - I don't think anyone has objective morality. No, whenever I say that I mean my objective standard has no objective reason to connect to morality, so no, its just you not understanding the difference. Not to mention, Christians can have the same belief of me, and lots of atheist believe there to be objective morality.

The rest is just repeated from before.

With great respect that makes no sense. Would you please give an example of what you mean? 


#332
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well, if you step down from your original charge I will consider your original charge no longer supported by you.

Israel was at war. Most times they were attacked. God never sent one man to go kill another. But that is what your initial scenario entailed.

If your position now is that God's decision sometimes resulted in the death of men, then the point in your OP is moot. The semantics are yours.

If you're saying now that God is sometimes immoral, I will have to ask you for a specific  example and how you arrived at that conclusion given what you say you believe about subjective morality. As it stands now, you seem to have abandoned your original claim.
Topic's author
#333
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
No, I am saying that the god of the bible commanded the fall of nations, and they were the ones who started the war, by, attacking cities that god commanded. That is purely their own blame. So no. Also what original claim? What are you talking about? That why should god asking to kill a single person wouldn't be surprising? I suppose it would be more likely he murders them himself, but not out of the realm of possibility whatsoever that he would command death.

Though.... it would probably be all gay people not a specfic one.

Thats me being semantic. 
Topic's author
#334
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
It means the standard one uses to judge claims on a moral basis, isn't necessarily dependent on whether or not they are connected to morality. The fact is - any morality that comes from/ is based on an agent is subjective - whereas things that aren't contingent on a mind are objective. You can make an objective claim that raping humans hurt humans and that pedophilia does the precise same thing. The only thing there is saying we should value human's well-being (I'm using the word to colloquially mean the physical and psychological state of a person), and considering we are humans, well you know, we ought to value what we are. 


#335
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
@Theweakeredge
Eh, I still think that the Bible is 'real open to interpretation.
I once ate my cereal and milk with a butter knife. . . And supping at the edge.

@NoOneInParticular
Semantical, is that really a word?
Google search, oh, guess it is.
#336
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Everything is "open" to interpretation, yet we often reach the truth. This is because logic is not open to interpretation.  Interpretations can be run through a logic filter. This doesn't mean that people are not allowed to hold illogical interpretations, but that their rationality can be determined. Is that not what most thinkers here are interested in? 
#337
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Ah, but 'there 'is a point I disagree with you.
While I think that there are perspectives one can glimmer from the Bible, for a number of conclusions I do not believe one has a right of absolute 'certainty from those glimmers.
(Broadly speaking, as it seems reasonable enough to me to feel certain that ancient Israel existed for instance)

What's 'valuable in that interpretation, to 'my mind, is that regardless of the fact that I believe much 'cannot be concluded, truth I mean.
We still have to live in this world, have to make choices, and decide as best we can, what we 'think, is right.
Which would match with your rationality argument I suppose.

. . .
Truth can be. . . shifting, a number of people found it difficult to believe the dinosaurs experienced extinction as I recall, or that the Earth should be so old.

Hm, philosophical axioms/truths/practicalities, 'reasonable, such as a number of the commandments.

Though, I'm 'still an atheist and avowed nihilist.
As the truth 'I've concluded is that there is no afterlife, God, or 'RIght.
#338
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret

Just in case no one has taken the time to tell you this...

That's an odd question.

Christians don't believe in "gay". 

They don't care.
I think that is presumptious on so many levels - and in particular to many gays who are Christian themselves
That reflects more upon yourself than God.  

Christians believe in God.
#339
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Is there a way to make someone into a burnt offering without killing them? I mean I know god puled his awesome "Psyyyyyyyyche!" at the end of this story, but strictly speaking...

Gen 22:2:

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

#340
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, I am saying that the god of the bible commanded the fall of nations...
That seems a step down from your OP. My only answer to this fallback position is, "so what?"
#341
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Is there a way to make someone into a burnt offering without killing them? I mean I know god puled his awesome "Psyyyyyyyyche!" at the end of this story, but strictly speaking...
You are in error because you are letting your bias cloud your thinking. Abraham was asked to "offer" His son, not burn Him. Abraham did just that. He offered his son. And God, being satisfied that Abraham had fulfilled His direction, told Abraham to not to kill his son.

Read the passage with your bias turned off and you'll see 3 things...
1. God never asked for the death of Isaac
2. Abraham did not believe God wanted the death of Isaac
3. The story's conclusion supports this view

Here is a question for you. Why did God stop the sacrifice after Abraham showed he was willing to offer his son?
#342
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
1. God never asked for the death of Isaac

He asked for a burnt offering. Do you think the lambs they burned were alive when they burned them? ABraham took out a knife and was ready to kill his son so he didn't have to hear him scream as he burned. It's pretty clear he was going to kill ISaac,  and at least according to the story, he wouldn't have thought about doing so if he didn't think God was TELLING him to. All I'm pointing out is indeed God does ask for humans to kill other humans, and this one, though it turned out to be an awesome prank, was not in a time of war. The story's conclusion is immaterial to your claim that God doesn't ask anyone to kill anyone else. This is a pretty early example in the book: go up on that mountain and kill then burn your son. 

Here is a question for you. Why did God stop the sacrifice after Abraham showed he was willing to offer his son?
No idea, since whatever idea he was trying to communicate to Abraham could have doubtlessly been do so less cruelly than pretending he was going to let him kill his only kid. All I'm pointing out is what's actually in the book, in direct contradiction to another one of your ill founded claims about the book. 
#343
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
He asked for a burnt offering. Do you think the lambs they burned were alive when they burned them? 
Doesn't matter. God asked Abraham to offer his son, not burn him. Basically, God was asking Abraham, are you willing to offer your only son to me? Abraham was. God sought Abraham's willingness, not Isaacs death. And when He got it, he was satisfied.

ABraham took out a knife and was ready to kill his son so he didn't have to hear him scream as he burned.
Lol. You don't know why God stopped the sacrifice but you know this? Did you get this knowledge from the text? Because I don't see it.

It's pretty clear he was going to kill ISaac,  and at least according to the story, he wouldn't have thought about doing so if he didn't think God was TELLING him to.
What Abraham thought and what God wanted are different things. I don't know where you get that Abraham believed he was going to kill Isaac. I see from the actual text that when Isaac asked about a sacrificial lamb, Abraham told him that God would provide one. That sounds to me like Abraham did not believe Isaac would be killed.

All I'm pointing out is indeed God does ask for humans to kill other humans, and this one, though it turned out to be an awesome prank, was not in a time of war.
Yet when I asked you why God stopped it, you say you don't know. Then where do you get the idea that God asked Abraham to kill Isaac? A more logical and unbiased conclusion is that God did not want the death of Isaac but the willingness of Abraham. The story supports this conclusion.

The story's conclusion is immaterial to your claim that God doesn't ask anyone to kill anyone else.
If you insist that God was asking Abraham to kill Isaac, you must tell us why did God stop Abraham from killing Isaac. An "I don't know" doesn't cut it. Why did God behave exactly opposite than what you claim His intent was?

This is a pretty early example in the book: go up on that mountain and kill then burn your son.
Lucky for us, the actual story contradicts your claim.

Here is a question for you. Why did God stop the sacrifice after Abraham showed he was willing to offer his son?

No idea, since whatever idea he was trying to communicate to Abraham could have doubtlessly been do so less cruelly than pretending he was going to let him kill his only kid.
If you don't know what idea God was trying to communicate to Abraham, how do you know it could have been done differently? And if God was "pretending", then He never intended Abraham to kill Isaac. Look at your knees. Are they still there?

All I'm pointing out is what's actually in the book, in direct contradiction to another one of your ill founded claims about the book. 
God asking Abraham to KILL Isaac is not in the book. "...so he didn't have to hear him scream.." is not in the book. God "pretending" is not in the book. What have you pointed out that's in the book? And what have I said that isn't in the book?

You may keep your opinion, but please don't pretend it comes from the text in question.
#344
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I don't know where you get that Abraham believed he was going to kill Isaac
I get that idea in Gensis 2:200. Again here it is: Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." He says sacrifice him there  as a burnt offering. Are there a lot of living burnt offerings?

 I see from the actual text that when Isaac asked about a sacrificial lamb, Abraham told him that God would provide one. That sounds to me like Abraham did not believe Isaac would be killed.
Right, this is later in the story. It sounds to me like a dad who knows if he told his son, who was significantly younger than him and presumably quicker, "Oh, we're sacrificing YOU , not a lamb!" that the son would panic and try to escape and cost him his chance to be god's obedient subject, but we can have different opinions. 

If you insist that God was asking Abraham to kill Isaac, you must tell us why did God stop Abraham from killing Isaac.
I don't see why I'd need to explain this characters' motivations if the text is indeed very plain. And really, I don'tneed to explain anyhting to point out what the text says, which is in demonstrable opposition to what you said. unless you think a burnt offering is somehow an alive offering. 

how do you know it could have been done differently?
The character in the book is purported to be all powerful, by definition all things could have been done differently. 

 And if God was "pretending", then He never intended Abraham to kill Isaac. 
THat's not your claim, that god never intended to kill anyone. YOu said god never asked anyone to kill anyone else, right?
#345
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't know where you get that Abraham believed he was going to kill Isaac.

 Are there a lot of living burnt offerings?
Isaac did not die. And no matter what Abraham believed, the claim in contention is that God told a man to kill another, not that a man believed God told him to kill another. Telling me your belief about what Abraham believed does not address what God intended.

 I see from the actual text that when Isaac asked about a sacrificial lamb, Abraham told him that God would provide one. That sounds to me like Abraham did not believe Isaac would be killed.

Right, this is later in the story. It sounds to me like a dad who knows if he told his son, who was significantly younger than him and presumably quicker, "Oh, we're sacrificing YOU , not a lamb!" that the son would panic and try to escape and cost him his chance to be god's obedient subject, but we can have different opinions.
This is conjecture. Abraham did not lie, and could have kept silent, or could have said "God has already provided a lamb." But he did not. Your bias is showing.

If you insist that God was asking Abraham to kill Isaac, you must tell us why did God stop Abraham from killing Isaac.

I don't see why I'd need to explain this characters' motivations if the text is indeed very plain.
You have assigned motive to God, yet the story contradicts you. If you cannot explain this discrepancy, it may be because your interpretation is in error.

And really, I don't need to explain anyhting to point out what the text says, which is in demonstrable opposition to what you said. unless you think a burnt offering is somehow an alive offering. 
It's simple. Abraham was asked to offer his son. He did that. God's intent was that Abraham offer his son, not that Abraham kill his son. The story supports this in that God forbid Abraham from killing his son.

...how do you know it could have been done differently?

The character in the book is purported to be all powerful, by definition all things could have been done differently. 
Untrue. God's omnipotence does not entail illogical things, or things that violate his essential nature. 

 And if God was "pretending", then He never intended Abraham to kill Isaac. 

THat's not your claim, that god never intended to kill anyone. YOu said god never asked anyone to kill anyone else, right?
Right. And the story shows that God did not ask Abraham to kill his son, and indeed God behaved as if He did not want Isaac dead. God asked Abraham to "offer" his son. If God was asking Abraham to kill his son, why did Isaac leave the altar alive?

Again I will say, you may keep your opinion, but please don't pretend it comes from the text in question. It is coming from your bias.
#346
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Everything is "open" to interpretation,

 It is and you do,  often..  as you have in your last three posts with Ludofl3x.   You have only been back seconds and right away your telling us what god really meant or changing what he said and rewriting scripture to make god come up smelling of roses. You are full of BS and anyone reading your crap above can see it for themselves.


And you do this especially when it comes to prickly verses in the scriptures where Christians  find it  hard to find harmony between a self confessed jealous god of war and a  "carpenters son" that preaches about  meek and mild people turning the other cheek and giving everything to the so called "poor".

And incidentally; they can never explain why it is that we should give to the poor particularly when  Peter expressly     tells us "The end of all things is near". 1 Peter 4:7 . What will be the point?  

Then we are told " do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself." . Matthew 6:34 

 So;  don't worry, but the end of all things is near. But hurry: !  Give all of your worldly goods and hard earned take home pay to "the poor". 

 Maybe this is why Jesus only bothered to cure  nine or ten lepers when he could have just as easily eradicated leprosy from the face of the earth altogether ?  Or why he didn't cure all blindness instead of  one or two blind men?  

 They can  never explain either why a GOD would waste his very first and perfectly good miracle on turning water into alcohol? 

Topic's author
#347
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
And yet you ignore my caveat because you decided to cut off a quote, you really are being semantic, but to answer your question: If god is saying that they should kill nations - god is commanding someone to kill another person.
#348
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I don't see why I'd need to explain this characters' motivations if the text is indeed very plain.
You have assigned motive to God, yet the story contradicts you. If you cannot explain this discrepancy, it may be because your interpretation is in error.

No, I didn't assign any motive at all. I didn't say "God said this because" or "God demanded Abraham do this because." I just pointed out what he commanded: to offer Isaac as a burnt sacrifice, which is God asking Abraham to kill his son . That's all that's in the text.  He asked for it, whatever the intent was. 

#349
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
...which is God asking Abraham to kill his son
Or God asking Abraham to offer his son. Which makes sense given that God was satisfied after Abraham offered his son.

Your claim is irrational, because God went right on to forbid what you claim He was asking for. But your bias requires you to hold on to a completely illogical interpretation.

Go ahead and hold it. It isn't a crime to hold irrational beliefs.
#350
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Every time you are beaten you simply run to yet another tired atheist trope.

I have better things to do. Make a thread if you want to be bested on a new topic.
#351
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Or God asking Abraham to offer his son
Exactly. As a burnt offering. Which is something that's dead, according to rationale and reason and also the text. 
#352
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
If god is saying that they should kill nations - god is commanding someone to kill another person.
OK. This is still far enough away from your bogus scenario of God whispering in my ear to go and kill you that I am comforted.

When you can give me a real example, I'll deal with it. Till then, your OP's claim has been debunked.
#353
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Exactly. As a burnt offering. Which is something that's dead, according to rationale and reason and also the text. 
Yet Isaac did not die. And according to you, the same person asking for that death is the one who prevented it. I guess that seems logical to you. It doesn't to me.

The offering and the killing are different things. You conflate them because that satisfies your bias. Isaac did not die because God did not want his death. I know this because God stopped his death. Logic is sweet no?
#354
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

Everything is "open" to interpretation,

 It is and you do,  often..  as you have in your last three posts with Ludofl3x.   You have only been back seconds and right away your telling us what god really meant or changing what he said and rewriting scripture to make god come up smelling of roses. You are full of BS and anyone reading your crap above can see it for themselves.


And you do this especially when it comes to prickly verses in the scriptures where Christians  find it  hard to find harmony between a self confessed jealous god of war and a  "carpenters son" that preaches about  meek and mild people turning the other cheek and giving everything to the so called "poor".

And incidentally; they can never explain why it is that we should give to the poor particularly when  Peter expressly     tells us "The end of all things is near". 1 Peter 4:7 . What will be the point?  

Then we are told " do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself." . Matthew 6:34 

 So;  don't worry, but the end of all things is near. But hurry: !  Give all of your worldly goods and hard earned take home pay to "the poor". 

 Maybe this is why Jesus only bothered to cure  nine or ten lepers when he could have just as easily eradicated leprosy from the face of the earth altogether ?  Or why he didn't cure all blindness instead of  one or two blind men?  





Every time you are beaten you simply run to yet another tired atheist trope.


So you have never contemplated those awkward stories above and contradictory verses above  then.  I should have known better than to expect you to take them on, you are no more bible savvy that the Reverend Tradesecrete, and he is a  fully qualified Lawyer, Chaplin and Pastor!!!!!  That has "  studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church" .  #91


I know  it may be hard to believe that someone with such a religious education   is as bible ignorant as  you  but here it is from the Pastors mouth:

I am a lawyer.  There you go

But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. #20


#355
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

The character in the book is purported to be all powerful, by definition all things could have been done differently.
Like Ethan said, Abraham was not expecting Isaac to be sacrificed. That's why he told those men both of them would be returning.

Another way to look at it.

Before Isaac was born, Abraham looked to God to save his family members in Sodom which was about to be destroyed. Abraham looked to God to save Isaac as well. The problem was that human sacrifice was the norm amongst Abraham's peers. There's also the opinion that the command actually came from men representing the voice of a god, or a god-king. There was no Israelite nation yet. Abraham was surrounded by pagans who stressed a necessity to sacrifice what's most valuable to their god. So rather than defy the abominable culture of the day, God chose to use the cultural practice of human sacrifice to display Abraham as one of the heroes of faith. So rather than Abraham looking to God to change his mind, it was probably more an attitude of looking to God to rescue Isaac as He did Lot and his family.

It's pretty clear from the text that Abraham viewed the test as a cultural necessity meant to prove his allegiance to the God he believed in. The text reveals that they left early in the morning with no hesitation. There appeared to be more expectancy of a rescue for Isaac than a temptation to refrain.

Of course later on God made it crystal clear to the chosen people Israel that human sacrifice is an abomination.


#356
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
The question isn't about what happened. You said god never commands anyone to kill anyone else, yet here he is, commanding Abraham to kill his son and offer him as a burnt offering like they did  with lambs. I don't disagree that god stopped him, not sure why you're worrying about that, when that has nothing to do with what you claimed, again.  So even if god was kidding (which, I mean...weird), he DOES in fact ask Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering which we agree means Isaac would be required to be dead, which is why he brought the knife. It's really something we can agree on, but you refuse to read the text as it is, as usual. 
#357
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not disputing what happens in the text. I'm saying the text says God asked Abraham to sacrifice his kid as a burnt offering. Whatever happens after, god indeed asked him to kill Isaac. It's very plain. I get the moral (though it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I get how Christians read it). But it doesn't change the fact that the text has god asking a man to kill his son. 
Topic's author
#358
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
No, that wasn't my claim, what I did was claim that it wasn't out of character for god to command someone to kill someone. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
#359
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
The question isn't about what happened. You said god never commands anyone to kill anyone else, yet here he is, commanding Abraham to kill his son and offer him as a burnt offering 
And yet, his son was NOT killed even though he was offered. I will just have to accept that you are not capable of understanding the text, that happens sometimes. Since I know you to be smart, I will chalk it up to bias and not IQ.

We can agree to disagree.
#360
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

I'm not disputing what happens in the text. I'm saying the text says God asked Abraham to sacrifice his kid as a burnt offering. Whatever happens after, god indeed asked him to kill Isaac. It's very plain. I get the moral (though it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I get how Christians read it). But it doesn't change the fact that the text has god asking a man to kill his son. 
But your questions just bring up more counter questions. Ethan has asked a couple, and I'll ask,

Why did Abraham say to Isaac

Genesis 22:7-8


New International Version




7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

 Why not just tell him that he's the one to be sacrificed?