How would you answer this atheist's question?

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

But you don’t believe He would ask you to do it.

No, I don’t.

 

[goout]

Freddy:

You have implied that child sacrifice was known in biblical times so does that mean God would think ‘He’ll accept this command now because he doesn’t know it’s wrong yet’.

God created life, so He can take it.

That’s misleading.
God’s omnipotence is not in contradiction to God’s revelation of God’s self.
Before you default to the literalist interpretation of an OT passage again:
Do you know what the full and final revelation of God is?

While God is the author of life, God is not an oppressive user of human violence who orders human beings to kill one another.

But anyway, thanks for giving @Freddy just cause. He has very good moral sense.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

While God is the author of life, God is not an oppressive user of human violence

I didn’t say He is.

 

[goout]

goout:

While God is the author of life, God is not an oppressive user of human violence

I didn’t say He is.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you then.

 

[Gorgias]

Good point. But again you are talking from the perspective of Abraham.

Well… I’m really trying to give perspective for us, as folks living in the 21st-century West. Our descendants might likely misunderstand us, in ways that we’d say “no, what I’m doing is totally normal and accepted in society!”

In any case…

I was trying to come up with a simple analogy, not an air-tight case.

Is killing a child wrong depending on the times? In this context no. It’s always wrong.

An innocent child? Sure. What about a child soldier pointing a rifle at you? (Sorry… just playing devil’s advocate. I agree that the murder of innocents is always wrong.)

The story probably worked as a warning at the time it was written. But it doesn’t stand now and it cannot be defended.

It can be defended as a narrative of its time and place. We could debate whether it’s literal or not; but that’s the only context that would give you grounds to assert that God isn’t good.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Good point. But again you are talking from the perspective of Abraham.

Well… I’m really trying to give perspective for us, as folks living in the 21st-century West. Our descendants might likely misunderstand us, in ways that we’d say “no, what I’m doing is totally normal and accepted in society!”

In any case…

I was trying to come up with a simple analogy, not an air-tight case.

Is killing a child wrong depending on the times? In this context no. It’s always wrong.

An innocent child? Sure. What about a child soldier pointing a rifle at you? (Sorry… just playing devil’s advocate. I agree that the murder of innocents is always wrong.)

The story probably worked as a warning at the time it was written. But it doesn’t stand now and it cannot be defended.

It can be defended as a narrative of its time and place. We could debate whether it’s literal or not; but that’s the only context that would give you grounds to assert that God isn’t good.

Agreed…

 

[JanR]

Can God only do good, or is something good simply because God does it?

God is perfectly righteous. That should provide the answer.

But the question remains, how would we know if such a command is coming from God? That’s where we should say if in doubt, don’t. If there’s any question at all if it’s God telling us to do this, don’t do it. If it really is coming from God, sooner or later, you’ll know for certain. Until then, don’t.

 

[Dan123]

But the question remains, how would we know if such a command is coming from God? That’s where we should say if in doubt, don’t. If there’s any question at all if it’s God telling us to do this, don’t do it. If it really is coming from God, sooner or later, you’ll know for certain. Until then, don’t.

Sure, but someone could both have no doubt and be wrong. It’s inherent in being fallible creatures.

 

[BornInMarch]

But then I remembered the Abraham and Isaac story. So maybe it wouldn’t be that obvious of an answer? What would you respond to this atheist’s question?

A lot of theologians understand that Abraham knew something was up; after all, God promised him a multitude of descendants and that would be impossible if Isaac died before becoming a father.

As for the hypothetical, you could give the same answer Abraham gave when God announced His intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah:

Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? … Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

 

[Chris-D]

Killing a child could be a moral choice if all other alternatives were exhausted and the child was doing something that would kill others. So God could command such a thing.

Unfortunately (IMO), if you hold the belief that your God is objectively moral and anything and all things he commands is moral…then if God told you to kill a baby you either do it like a good servant for your God (which is the moral thing to do according to Catholic theology) OR you don’t do it because you view it as immoral (which most people on earth would have your side - via the foundation of well-being at a minimum). This is the euthyphro dilemma in a nutshell. You should answer the question because if you say “god would never command such a thing” that is patently false unless you view the whole OT as allegorical: God told a man to kill his son, god told moses to go kill men women and children, god killed a ton of babies in the flood, etc. The fact that he either does it himself (the flood) or he uses people (Moses and Abraham) is irrelevant.

Now if this question gives you pause and you think “if god told me to kill a baby I wouldnt do it” then you should seriously reconsider if you think personal revelations are good reasons to do things. If you decide that personal revelations are NOT good reasons to do things…now you have to doubt all of the Pauline epistles. Furthermore, if you say “well how do I know if God really told me to or not” and you pause, well now we have to cast doubt on all the times you read “thus sayeth the lord your god” in the bible, but rather interpret as “maybe god said this, but then again maybe he didnt”. All of these people arguing that it was a different time and place must not believe that God is objectively the moral law giver. So you’re telling me that in 2000 BC it was objectively moral to kill a child if “god says so” but here in the 21st century it is immoral to kill a child “if god says so” are doing mental gymnastics.

The right answer from a Catholic perspective would be “yes if god told me to I would kill a baby”. In my opinion, it is objectively always immoral to kill a child. However, in some cases doing the immoral thing to prevent greater immorality might be justified, such as killing a child suicide bomber or african child soldier…it’s not a simple answer but IMO its the right one.

 

[goout]

goout:

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

I didn’t say He is.

God is an oppressive user of human violence, read the accounts of genocide sanctioned by god in the OT.

You’re a fundamentalist Christian then, who takes the bible in literalist fashion?
If not, tell us where you’re coming from, because that’s not the Catholic point of view at all.