If God asked you to sacrifice what you loved most (exactly like what happened to Abraham), would you kill your son, or at least whole heartedly have the intentions of doing so?
What would you do if God commands you to murder.
Posts
Total:
115
-->
@Wagyu
No.
Aside from various semantic issues...
Presuming I firmly 100% believe it to be God, and not a trickster, indeed the father of Jesus, etc. still no.
Like in Kingsmen when Eggsy wasn’t loyal enough to kill his dog, I likewise would not. I am not Abraham. Abraham was special in his devotion.
-->
@Wagyu
Seek psychiatric help.
-->
@Wagyu
I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.
I concede that the example of Abraham is relevant to this question but I take the view that that example was unique. It was one out of the box and was for our understanding not for our example to follow.
The OT itself does not condone murder but condemns it. The 6th commandment is the statute which forbids murder. You shall not murder.
The NT follows this example. A hermenuitic of NT theology is that if the OT is expressly commanded to be followed in the NT - then the law applies not just specifically to ISrael but to the church as well. Paul condemns murder.
Paul and the writer of Hebrews also confirms that fresh revelation has ceased. 1 Cor 13:8 and Hebrews 1:1-3 both indicate that new or fresh revelation from God has ceased. This might annoy the Mormons and the JWs and the charismatics - and all cults that want to blame God for everything - but the NT is quite clear that revelation has ceased. In fact Daniel 9 gives us the end of revelation - so both the OT and the NT together provide clarification that fresh revelation is no longer taking place - so
the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.
I would disobey God.
How is god giving someone this information? Since he has never asked it before and followed though why would one believe that is what god wants?
-->
@Tradesecret
I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.
Though God did not necessarily ask Abraham to kill, he did ask him to sacrifice what he loves most, which God being omnipotent, should know is his son.
The 6th commandment is the statute which forbids murder. You shall not murder.
If religious people really did get their morality from the bible, then why are their Christians who are in favour of the death penalty? I'm sure, if you asked any Christian whether they would rather kill 1 person or a billion, all of them would say that the one person could go. Clearly, religious people do not get their morality from the bible, they infer passages from the bible into their liking.
the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.
And Abraham was hearing...
-->
@Wagyu
I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.Though God did not necessarily ask Abraham to kill, he did ask him to sacrifice what he loves most, which God being omnipotent, should know is his son.
I do not know the mind of God. Nor do I know the mind of Abraham. Was Isaac the thing Abraham loved most? Perhaps? Perhaps not? Would not this demonstrate that he actually loved God even more than his son? Personally, I think Abraham believed in the resurrection of his son.
The 6th commandment is the statute which forbids murder. You shall not murder.If religious people really did get their morality from the bible, then why are their Christians who are in favour of the death penalty? I'm sure, if you asked any Christian whether they would rather kill 1 person or a billion, all of them would say that the one person could go. Clearly, religious people do not get their morality from the bible, they infer passages from the bible into their liking.
Capital Punishment is not murder. It is lawful killing. Personally, I do not think the West is mature enough for the death penalty. I am a Christian. I do not think that the killing of 1 person is more justified than the killing of a billion. Christians - tend to think that the END does not justify the MEANS. Christians tend to take the view that how we get somewhere is just as important as the destination. It seems you do not even understand what Christians think, let alone are able to conclude that they do not get their morality from the bible. Hence your last sentence is clouded with your own beliefs.
the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.And Abraham was hearing...
The book of Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us that times past God spoke in diverse ways. After Jesus, this changed. Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 13:8. Both describe what Daniel spoke of in Daniel 9:24. The sealing up of vision within the generation of Jesus' death - up until the end of the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 which correlates with the writing of the NT.
The Reformed position is that fresh revelation has ceased. God has spoken but has now stopped speaking. He won't speak again until the end - on judgment day. He now speaks through the Bible.
The Reformed position is that all religions or people claiming new or fresh revelation are speaking through their hats. This would mean that we reject the Catholic Church's view on the pope's ex cathedra. It would mean that we would reject the LDS, the JWs, ALL cults of any stripe, the Seventh Day Adventist, the Charismatic movement, the Pentecostal movement. And any religion or spiritualist who claims to be speaking on behalf of God. This also includes the ancient popes who said they heard directly from God. Rejecting their so called words of revelation does not mean rejecting them per se. Yet it does mean that we refuse to give their news words any authority or credibility. It simply means that - any of these new called fresh revelation is sourced either in humanity, demons, or something else. Just not God.
For the Reformed faith - the line has been drawn in the sand. We stand and fall with the Bible - in the NT and the OT.
You obey.
God would not command you to murder in normal circumstances, and if god commands you to murder, it is probably just.
-->
@Intelligence_06
@Wagyu
GOD and normal circumstances is a contradiction in terms.
Definitely seek psychiatric help if you hear voices in your head commanding you to murder.
Because voices in your head is voices in your head.
-->
@zedvictor4
Voices in my head is no god, so I won’t obey them.
-->
@Intelligence_06
The definition of murder includes unlawfulness. It is impossible to murder lawfully.
-->
@Tradesecret
If so, then the question is obsolete: it calls for a scenario that doesn’t happen whatsoever.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, that is the point isn't? There are some on this site who believe that God has murdered people and also asked humans to murder people.
And arising from that position - comes the question: if God asked you to murder someone would you do it?
And this of course it is also based on the prior question of whether fresh or new revelation is still occurring?
Many Christians and many people from other religions, e.g, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, new agers, spiritualists, wiccans, and perhaps some Jews still believe fresh revelation is occurring.
Reformed Christians on the other hand, do not. Jews, for the most part, practice even if they don't admit it, that revelation ceased with the OT.
I then am in the interesting position that not only do I not believe that God would ask me to unlawfully kill someone, but furthermore, that God has chosen to speak only through his word the Bible until the second coming in special revelation. Of course natural revelation remains in place - but this is not fresh or new - but has existed from eternity.
-->
@Tradesecret
Capital Punishment is not murder. It is lawful killing.
The ten commandments states thou shall not kill, not thou shall not murder. If a religious person really did get their morality from the bible, they should say no to all killing. Clearly, they don't.
I do not think that the killing of 1 person is more justified than the killing of a billion.
If I bought Adolf Hitler to you and said that in order for you to save the entire planet, you had to kill Hitler, would you? Any sane person would say yes, however, the Bible clearly states that thou shall not kill. Simple.
-->
@Tradesecret
I concede that the example of Abraham is relevant to this question but I take the view that that example was unique. It was one out of the box and was for our understanding not for our example to follow.
-->
@Wagyu
If God asked you to sacrifice what you loved most (exactly like what happened to Abraham), would you kill your son, or at least whole heartedly have the intentions of doing so?
If God and I only just met, as weird as the answer would be considering it's God, it would still be no.
Abraham didn't just meet God before the test - he knew God, had been walking with God for a lot of years, had been shown grace and lived through fulfilled promises (such as Isaac), and had unfulfilled promises in mind (that Isaac would be the descendent through whom the progression of the promised Seed who would bless all the nations of the earth would continue). It's safe to say that no doesn't come as easily to you when you already know the person.
Isaac wasn't just a son. He was a promise. Now, some people today might say God promised them this or that child, all in good sentiment. Not the same with Abraham and Isaac. God was getting a people ready for the Seed, there was only one and so the descendent line was straightforward.
Perhaps the world needed only one Abraham. Perhaps it was proper and necessary for Abraham to be tested in this way for the imputation of his faith and righteousness to be given to the people of faith in Christ. Maybe Abraham didn't know that he could freely give and trust God until his faith, dependent on prior knowledge, compelled him in that way, and his example is our strength.
There are a lot of things to keep in mind when dissecting this story other than: will you kill if God told you?
-->
@3RU7AL
OK and what is your point? There is nothing like comedy referring to a few bits of a story - without relating the whole story.
It really is difficult to take the comedy even semi-seriously when it is written and directed by person's who obviously have drawn their own conclusions.
It is a bit like watching the Democrats attack Republican policy or vice versa.
-->
@Wagyu
Capital Punishment is not murder. It is lawful killing.The ten commandments states thou shall not kill, not thou shall not murder. If a religious person really did get their morality from the bible, they should say no to all killing. Clearly, they don't.
It is you shall not murder - and is translated that way in many translations. The Hebrew in the text actually indicates that a proper translation is "you shall not put to death an Israelite (Covenant keeper). The implication clearly is that it is forbidden to kill someone who is doing the right thing.
I do not think that the killing of 1 person is more justified than the killing of a billion.
If I bought Adolf Hitler to you and said that in order for you to save the entire planet, you had to kill Hitler, would you? Any sane person would say yes, however, the Bible clearly states that thou shall not kill. Simple.
A clear hypothetical. SO tell me - why did you bring him to me and not kill him yourself? Are you suggesting you are not sane? And yet here we are in a hypothetical situation.
Did you bring him to me before he killed anyone? Did you bring him to me in the midst of a war? Did you bring him to me as a soldier - you and me? Did you bring him to me in the 21st century when is about 120 years old?
My personal view is that I would not kill Hitler unless I have proper authority to do that. There are of course legitimate defenses of self defence - of myself - of others. But these are all legitimate reasons to kill someone - not murder.
If he was in prison - and I was his guard. I would not kill him either. Do I think he is worthy of being killed? Absolutely. Yet, only legitimately - not as a vigilante. For me to kill Hitler without lawful justification makes me a murderer. I am not a murderer.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Wagyu
HI Guys,
have you guys forgotten this interesting topic?
-->
@Tradesecret
I would be lying to you if I said that I am still interested in this topic. Nevertheless, you shall receive a reply.
It is you shall not murder - and is translated that way in many translations. The Hebrew in the text actually indicates that a proper translation is "you shall not put to death an Israelite (Covenant keeper). The implication clearly is that it is forbidden to kill someone who is doing the right thing.
Thou shall not kill. (bible gateway)
You next section is essentially you dodging the question. So I will re ask it here without any room for oily play.
Imagine that you were to time travel to the year 1930. Imagine that, until that point, Hilter had done everything he had done. Imagine that you were walking through a playground and saw Hitler sitting on a bench. For the sake of the example, imagine that your life was not in danger. Essentially, it is just you and Hitler.
Imagine that Hitler came up to you and said that he was about to escape, to a place where no one would find him. Assume that you knew this was true. For whatever reason, you knew that you were the last person who would ever see Hitler.
You know that he has tortured Jews. You know that he has separated families. You know that millions have died because of him.
You are given a choice. You can kill him, or you can let him live, knowing that justice would never be severed.
-->
@Tradesecret
Selective morality as ever.
Stroke the Dog and eat the Pig......Not necessarily though.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Wagyu
And here I was thinking you were both retreating to a safe place because you had not substantial or worthwhile reply.
I don't particularly care how some people translate it. The fact is - it refer to murder - to breaking covenant. You can reject that if so persist - but I will only ever address it in that sense - because that is what it means. And the context of that verse in the entire bible demands such a translation because God obviously commands killing things on occasion - even if that is referring to animals, let alone people who break covenant.
In relation to Hitler, my viewpoint has not changed by your scenario. Fact is - unless I have government sanctioned authority to kill him, I would not. If I did not have sanctioned authority to kill him, and he was threatening me or my family - then I if the circumstances warranted it could act in a legal defence.
I would not kill Hitler otherwise. I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. The journey is equal to the destination.
I reject your position that the moral justification of the greater good is more important than doing what is right.
In relation to my choice - it is easy. Everyone stands before the judgment seat of God. Much better to stand in the human court than the divine one.
-->
@zedvictor4
But you have to think those pesky leprechauns are adorable? Surely????
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't particularly care how some people translate it.
I thank you for your concession.
The fact is - it refer to murder - to breaking covenant.
You know why it refers to murder? Because you are using your own morality to infer this. People wanted it to be murder because it was nicer than kill. In biblical Hebrew, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words. Guess what's in the bible? Kill not murder.
In relation to Hitler, my viewpoint has not changed by your scenario.
Hear this folks? If TS would not kill Hitler knowing his background and knowing that he was about to escape and evade justice forever. Wicked.
I don't know why religious people are so against abortion. God had no problem killing babies.
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”
-->
@Wagyu
I don't particularly care how some people translate it.I thank you for your concession.
It is not a concession of any note - except that some people just do whatever they like - despite the rules of language.
The fact is - it refer to murder - to breaking covenant.You know why it refers to murder? Because you are using your own morality to infer this. People wanted it to be murder because it was nicer than kill. In biblical Hebrew, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words. Guess what's in the bible? Kill not murder.
The difference between murder and killing is the matter of intent and lawful justification.
Go back and read the passage in Hebrew. Both words you provide are at different times translated murder and kill. The context is what is going to help us understand what it means.
We don't just translate the word to mean what it obviously is not intended to mean. That would make a mockery of language and of the author's intent. You might like very much to think it means "kill", but that is clearly not the intention. That would be you injecting into the word, meaning from your bias.
On the other hand - the book of Exodus and indeed the rest of the first five books, does not forbid killing per se. Yet condones it and in many cases commands it. So if the word can be translated either way just on its literal wooden base, then the context demands that is something else other than "kill". That is the logic of the language.
Also as I indicated earlier - the literal wooden translation of the commandment is "you shall not put to death an Israelite". An Israelite is defined as one who keeps the covenant of God. As all of the authors of the OT would describe it - a covenant keeper. In other words, you cannot put to death - someone who is keeping the covenant of God. This suggests very strongly that the person who breaks covenant can be put to death. And if this is correct, then we would find in the passages throughout the bible, and in particular in the statutes, that people who break covenant are those that are required to be put to death. And lo and behold - that is exactly what we find.
Hence, it is the case that you are not permitted to kill per se. And you are not permitted to kill covenant keepers. It is only those who have broken the law that are permitted to be put to death. And the idiom you find in these cases are "you shall surely put to death". And since you are looking at the Hebrew, read those idioms literally and you will see that the word "surely" is actually the word "dying". So if we translated it literally and wooden, it would read , "dying, you shall put to death". The double usage of dying / death is a specific Hebrew reference to covenant and refers to covenant death. It is the same form of idiom used in Genesis - when God said to Adam - "you will surely die". "Dying you shall die".
In relation to Hitler, my viewpoint has not changed by your scenario.Hear this folks? If TS would not kill Hitler knowing his background and knowing that he was about to escape and evade justice forever. Wicked.
Hitler was wicked. Agreed. I am not Hitler. I would not kill him without lawful justification. Your attempt to shame me is somewhat embarrassing for you. For you reveal that for you the ends justifies the means. This means - that for you - so far as you achieve the end you want or desire - you will resort to anyway of getting there - whether that be lying, cheating, defrauding, stealing. These things mean nothing for you. It also means that you are a hypocrite - for you concede that you justify what Hitler did. For he agreed with the same principle. The ends justifies the means. He believed that the end he desired was worth any means of getting there. And for you to suggest that I should kill him - just because I could - puts you - with great respect - in his shoes. I will not join you there.
If Hitler committed such atrocities and evils under that philosophy as did Mao and Stalin and Lenin and PolPot, and if you agree with that justification then you are in bed with all of them.
I do not agree with it. I believe that the destination and the journey are both important. And how we get somewhere - the process - the means - is just as important - if not sometimes more important than where we want to go. So let me repeat myself. I totally agree that Hitler was worthy of being put to death. And if this meant that the government of my country had lawfully ordered the assassination of him by every person in our country, then only then I would be comfortable putting him to death personally.
Yet, I do not believe in taking the law into my own hands. I am not a vigilante and do not support vigilantes. I think those that work outside of the law - demonstrate that they are a law unto themselves and whatever their intentions are supposed to be - for good or bad - they believe they are above the law. This goes against my view that all people are equal beneath the law. IT is an elitist position - and should be condemned.
-->
@FLRW
Because killing humans without lawful justifications is murder.
And humans know killing humans is murder in those circumstance. Why do you think that humans have therefore re-defined what a human is - and why they re-defined or re-labeled what babies are called? To call a human a fetus is to de-humanise it. It is to rationalize away murder - murder of the most defenceless and vulnerable and for the most part - it is so that humans can have pleasure.
Yes, some abortions are justified. However these are very rare.
The vast and overwhelming amount of abortions are simply because people have not been able to say no or because they are too reckless to use contraception.
That is an insidious and evil way to justify abortion - the needless murder of millions of humans every year.
-->
@Tradesecret
It's simply a case of what the eye sees the heart grieves over.......Or, what the eye chooses to see.....Selective morality.....Hypocrisy.
And you perhaps know more about leprechauns than I do.
-->
@FLRW
I don't know why religious people are so against abortion. God had no problem killing babies.1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”
Good point.