Did God Command Murder?

[HeirofSalvation]

16 There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
18 A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. Prov 6

If you're looking for a scriptual definition of 'murder', I say this is it; the shedding of innocent blood.

And I agree with Aaron, if it's the will of God, it isn't murder:

True... it is the shedding of "innocent blood" but as far as bing ritualistically sacrificed and burned....Isaac was "innocent". no?

 

[percho]

True... it is the shedding of "innocent blood" but as far as bing ritualistically sacrificed and burned....Isaac was "innocent". no?

So was Jesus, "innocent." Did God commit suicide or did God murder himself.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

God through this command which he wasn't going to allow to proceed to fulfillment was preaching the gospel to Abraham.

 

[John of Japan]

So, your argument is at that time and in those circumstances it was lawful for Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice?

No, I'm arguing that you need to redo your definition if you want to prove that God commanded Abraham to murder.

If so, does that mean God's laws change depending upon time and circumstances?

What do you mean by God's laws? The law He gave to the Jews? Or some other law I'm not aware of.

If so, why are we disagreeing in the first place regarding Rahab's lie? I mean, if God's rules are subject to change depending upon time, circumstance, motive etc, then you have just proven my point.

I've not argued from "law" as our moral imperative at any time. I've been arguing from the very nature of God. If you haven't gotten that by now, it's useless for me to explain it again.

 

[Skandelon]

No, I'm arguing that you need to redo your definition if you want to prove that God commanded Abraham to murder.

1. It's not my definition.
2. You are avoiding my question

I've not argued from "law" as our moral imperative at any time. I've been arguing from the very nature of God. If you haven't gotten that by now, it's useless for me to explain it again.

Actually, I'm the one arguing for the nature of God, you are the one arguing for the rule of law or 'ethics.' (i.e. it is never the right thing to deceive someone else). So, you are the one putting ethics, or morality above the nature of God and his direct command. If God appeared to you and told you to lie to protect His servants you would say "no, God, because that is sinful." If he told you to sacrifice your son, you would also say no because you appear to put laws and your interpretation of them above the person and nature of God himself. That may not be your intent but that is the nature of you position nevertheless.

 

[John of Japan]

1. It's not my definition.

Then you have broken BB rules by not sourcing it.

2. You are avoiding my question

Didn't mean to. Repeat the question and I'll try.

Actually, I'm the one arguing for the nature of God, you are the one arguing for the rule of law or 'ethics.' (i.e. it is never the right thing to deceive someone else). So, you are the one putting ethics, or morality above the nature of God and his direct command. If God appeared to you and told you to lie to protect His servants you would say "no, God, because that is sinful." If he told you to sacrifice your son, you would also say no because you appear to put laws and your interpretation of them above the person and nature of God himself. That may not be your intent but that is the nature of you position nevertheless.

Wow. I don't think you are misrepresenting my position on purpose, so you must be just misunderstanding it. You've not represented me correctly at all in this paragraph either on the murder issue or the lying issue.

Let me put it simply and straight to once more try to get you to understand. God is just and righteous, therefore God will never murder and never require us to murder. If we think He has commanded murder that means that we have not understood. Likewise, God is Truth, so let every man be a liar--but not God.

The revelation of the Bible shows what God is. And I believe the Bible to be the verbal-plenary inspired Word of God. Therefore there are no errors in it, and it is to be taken at face value, interpreted literally (remembering that there are figures of speech and other symbolic statements in it). You want to call me a legalist (with your own private definition) because of that, whatever you want, go right ahead. This is getting old. :sleep:

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, he was absolutely obligated....morally by his predecesor Noah, and through Shem who passed the moral law down to him.....God established....through those patriarchs, the moral law, from which any Legitimate political / governmental law derives it's power....note yet again:
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

So far so good.

From these basic principles: Civil authorities are to derive their power, I would contend that civil authority had its basis here and Abraham would have been subject to those principles......You have now begun appealing to civil law to back up our claims.....and yet it was civil law you refused to break With your refusal to "lie to the authorities" with the source of this debate to begin with....

You lost me here. I don't get your argument at all.

Depending on the identitiy of Mr. Melchizedek.....(a debatable identity to be sure).. Abraham might have quite reasonably obeyed some of the Civil Authorities extant in the near Middle East as he knew them at the time, hence, his rendering of a tithe to him....after a battle was fought.

You're confusing religion (faith) with civil law here. Abraham did not recognize Melchizedek as a civil authority.

 

[John of Japan]

Morally, they were beyond guilty, what they did was a sin, they committed sin, accordng to this line of thought, as long as a soldier is comanded by his earthly superiors to commit any given attrocity, he is absolved from the guilt of such because he was "commanded" to commit it: THAT IS SITUATION ETHICS.... you may be o.k. with that, but, as a former Marine infantry and anti-terrorism man myself, I know the difference, and ,I will have no part of it.

You misunderstand situation ethics as originally espoused by Joseph Fletcher. Please study the subject some more, then we can talk about it. (I don't mean this to be looking down on you. It is a genuine suggestion.)

Secondly, I completely oppose committing atrocities simply because of a human order from higher up. And that kind of act is not situation ethics (which I also strongly oppose), but simple evil. We should follow God at all costs, even if it means opposing evil from our superiors. I'd willingly go to jail rather thancommit atrocities simply because I was ordered to. And my position on this thread that God is truth and justice, and all true morality extends from His nature, leads me to that position. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29, KJV).

Please try not to so completely misrepresent my position in the future.

 

[percho]

I still say it was the means by which God choose to teach Abraham about the kingdom of God and the resurrection from the dead as the gateway thereof through the one seed of promise.

God had no intent on Abraham slaying Issac.

 

[webdog]

I still say it was the means by which God choose to teach Abraham about the kingdom of God and the resurrection from the dead as the gateway thereof through the one seed of promise.

God had no intent on Abraham slaying Issac.

I agree, but now we have the issue of deception which many would constitute as lying. I've gone on the record in saying not all dishonesty is sinful, the extent to which it is sinful stems from the intent of the heart.

 

[Skandelon]

John,

Let's cut to the chase.

If God appeared to you in person and told you to sacrifice your son to him by tying him to a log taking a knife and stabbing him until he stopped breathing what would you say to Him?

And don't say God wouldn't do that because that is what He did to Abraham, plus we are SUPPOSING this actually does happen, so just answer the question.

Next, suppose Muslim extremists takes over the USA and have decided to kill some Christian missionary friends of yours. They come to your house to hide from them, so you hide them in your basement. They come to your door and ask you, "Is anyone else in the house?" "Are you hiding anyone hear?" "Has anyone come to your house to hide from us?"

How would you answer? And don't say, "that wouldn't happen," it is an ethical supposition for the sake of the argument, so just answer it.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Let's cut to the chase.

If God appeared to you in person and told you to sacrifice your son to him by tying him to a log taking a knife and stabbing him until he stopped breathing what would you say to Him?

Why are you making this personal? The discussion is about Abraham, not me and my son.

And don't say God wouldn't do that because that is what He did to Abraham, plus we are SUPPOSING this actually does happen, so just answer the question.

Part of my argument has been based on the society of Abraham's time. We live in an entirely different society with entirely different societal mores, so this whole hypothetical is a non-sequiter.

Next, suppose Muslim extremists takes over the USA and have decided to kill some Christian missionary friends of yours. They come to your house to hide from them, so you hide them in your basement. They come to your door and ask you, "Is anyone else in the house?" "Are you hiding anyone hear?" "Has anyone come to your house to hide from us?"

How would you answer? And don't say, "that wouldn't happen," it is an ethical supposition for the sake of the argument,

Look at the OP again. I do not want to rehash the whole lying argument again. I thought we did a pretty good job with that the first time.

so just answer it.

What, you're giving me orders now? :tongue3:

 

[Skandelon]

Why are you making this personal? The discussion is about Abraham, not me and my son.

Oh come now, we are having a discussion about ethical dilemmas of which I'm supposing on you. Please don't dodge the question using such clear diversionary tactics. If it helps suppose it is some Random guy...oh, I know, we can call him "Abe" and his son, "Issa." Now, answer the question...

Part of my argument has been based on the society of Abraham's time. We live in an entirely different society with entirely different societal mores, so this whole hypothetical is a non-sequiter.

So God's laws and expectations for man change depending on the time and circumstance. Thanks, you just made my point. Debate is over.

:wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

Oh come now, we are having a discussion about ethical dilemmas of which I'm supposing on you. Please don't dodge the question using such clear diversionary tactics. If it helps suppose it is some Random guy...oh, I know, we can call him "Abe" and his son, "Issa." Now, answer the question...

Still giving me orders?

Would you kill your son in 2012 if you thought God had told you to? Are you aware that the doctrine of revelation is entirely different now than it was in Abraham's day?

I've fully discussed the issue. I do believe Abraham was commanded to kill his son. That's plain. I don't believe the command was to murder.

So God's laws and expectations for man change depending on the time and circumstance. Thanks, you just made my point. Debate is over.

Once again you don't understand my position. And you are so sure of yourself you don't even ask for clarification. (And there is a great passage about this I'm surprised you haven't used.) But hey, pat yourself on the back, congratulate yourself that you've won the debate, and sign off. :sleep:

 

[Skandelon]

Still giving me orders?

It was a polite request that over time has gained some candor in hopes of an actual response.

Would you kill your son in 2012 if you thought God had told you to? Are you aware that the doctrine of revelation is entirely different now than it was in Abraham's day?

I never said "thought." There was no equivocation in the supposition. If God himself appeared to me and you convincingly, as He did Abraham, and requested us to sacrifice our children, you would put the law (as you understand it) above God's request, right or wrong?

I've fully discussed the issue. I do believe Abraham was commanded to kill his son. That's plain. I don't believe the command was to murder.

I can accept that position. Murder could be understood as that which is evil, but that is my point. You called the 'deception' of Rahab a lie and thus sinful, and I disagreed for the same reasons you are not willing to call Abraham's intent murderous.

Once again you don't understand my position. And you are so sure of yourself you don't even ask for clarification.

When I ask you a question you accuse me of getting personal and avoid answering it then roll you eyes at me for giving you orders, what options have you left?

But hey, pat yourself on the back, congratulate yourself that you've won the debate, and sign off. :sleep:

:godisgood:

 

[Yeshua1]

wasn't the point here though that Abraham was showing off his great faith, in that he was willingly to obey God if called upon, as he knew God would raise his son back to life if need be, as he was child of the promise?

so since God knew what Abraham would before even requesting it off him, was that asking for murder really?

 

[Skandelon]

So, it is ok to kill someone if you know they will be raise back to life? Does that mean it would be okay to lie if you know God is going to accomplish good from it (i.e. saving the Israelite spies)?

 

[psalms109:31]

We may not understand some thing and why did these things have to happen.

People have did some horrible things in the name of Jesus that have misunderstood the teaching and intent of God in the old days.

These words will stand in judgement of them before our Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 5 :
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[Lev. 19:18] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

[psalms109:31]

Will Jesus do nothing to those who did horrible things in His name?

Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

[John of Japan]

so just answer it.

Now, answer the question...

It was a polite request that over time has gained some candor in hopes of an actual response.

These are what you call "a polite request"??? I hope you're never rude to me.

Furthermore, your question was such an obvious trap I'm amazed you actually expected me to answer it. If I said "Yes" you could say that I would be committing murder in 2012 by any law in existence. If I said "No" you could say, "So, you don't believe in obeying God."

I never said "thought." There was no equivocation in the supposition. If God himself appeared to me and you convincingly, as He did Abraham, and requested us to sacrifice our children, you would put the law (as you understand it) above God's request, right or wrong?

It is as obvious as the nose on your face to a dispensationalist that revelation was direct from God to Abraham, and even a covenant theologian like Machen would agree. Revelation in 2012 does not consist of God directly speaking to man, so if God "appeared convincingly" to you, you would be mistaken. You would "think" God was appearing when He was not--it would probably be demonic activity.

I can accept that position. Murder could be understood as that which is evil, but that is my point. You called the 'deception' of Rahab a lie and thus sinful, and I disagreed for the same reasons you are not willing to call Abraham's intent murderous.

In the thread on lying, you never took the position that a lie ceased to be a lie when it was for a righteous end. You've now apparently changed your position.

When I ask you a question you accuse me of getting personal and avoid answering it then roll you eyes at me for giving you orders, what options have you left?

As I said, your question was an obvious trap.

 

[Skandelon]

These are what you call "a polite request"??? I hope you're never rude to me.

Your reading tone into my words. I say 'just answer the question,' and apparently you hear, " JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION JERK!!! "

Furthermore, your question was such an obvious trap I'm amazed you actually expected me to answer it. If I said "Yes" you could say that I would be committing murder in 2012 by any law in existence. If I said "No" you could say, "So, you don't believe in obeying God."

To prove to you that was not my intent let's suppose you lived during the time of Abraham and God came to you and asked you to kill your son. Would you do it? What if you lived at the time of Rahab and you were faced with the same dilemma? Would you have deceived the soldiers or not?

It is as obvious as the nose on your face to a dispensationalist that revelation was direct from God to Abraham, and even a covenant theologian like Machen would agree. Revelation in 2012 does not consist of God directly speaking to man, so if God "appeared convincingly" to you, you would be mistaken. You would "think" God was appearing when He was not--it would probably be demonic activity.

I warned you not to do this for the case of the supposition. We are not supposing demonic activity, we are supposing an actual real encounter with God, like the one Abraham had. Now, I've even moved the supposition back in time so you can't blame it on the time we live in, as if that makes any difference with a God whose character doesn't change.

In the thread on lying, you never took the position that a lie ceased to be a lie when it was for a righteous end. You've now apparently changed your position.

No, I'm fine referring to it as a lie, but I can understand someone's unwillingness to do so because the word itself connotes 'evil' or 'wrongdoing.' You clearly believed what Rahab did (regardless of what you call it) was wrong/evil/sin and I did not (and neither did God).