If the only acceptable answers are “yes” or “no” and either answer leads to an accusation that discredits the speaker, then yes, it is a loaded question.
Edit: As to the claim that God might do this today because He did in the time of Abraham:
At that time human sacrifice was an established custom, something to be expected. Abraham would have grieved, but he would not have been shocked or accused God of barbarism. That is no longer true. The age of blood sacrifices is long past.
We have no reason to think God would make such a demand today, and plenty of reason to believe He would not.
I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. God creates the moral code by which we’re to abide. He created the Universe humanity has lived in all this time, but yet, he is somehow bound by the barbarous moral deficits of early societies, pre-Moses and the Ten Commandments. But this doesn’t apparently contradict the fact that God’s moral code is absolute and/or objective and/or unchangable.
And re: the loaded question issue - why is answering either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ likely to discredit someone? Is it because the question itself is inherently unfair and leading (‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’), or is it because your faith paints you into a corner to the point that even a fair question can’t be answered in a way that makes one look good. It isn’t enough argue the question is loaded because there’s no good answer. Why is there no good answer?
oldcatholicguy:
Let’s go with your implied definition that killing and murder are the same and that murder/killing is always immoral. If you came across Abraham and Isaac, would you murder Abraham in order to save Isaac? Answer yes- you’re an immoral person, answer no- you’re an immoral person because you let a murder take place. It’s a loaded question.
Killing people and murdering people are the same. It’s the circular logic of the faithful that pretends otherwise. Murdering someone is immoral. Killing someone is not. How do we know when it’s murder and when it’s killing? Well, if you immorally kill someone, that’s murder. Otherwise, say, if God orders you to do it, then it’s just killing. See the difference?
And I don’t think it’s always an immoral act. For example, if I saw a man about murder his child, I’d intervene. And if it meant I’d have to kill the guy to prevent him from committing his atrocity, I’d do it. In a categorical sense, I don’t consider that immoral. Somebody is going to die, regardless. Are we better off if the guy who lives is someone who’s demonstrated a willingness to kill an innocent person because they think their God told them to?
Also, I should point out to everyone trying to play the “God would never order anyone to kill their child” card is simply ducking the question. For the sake of hypothetical, we’re stipulating that God has asked you to do this. If you
really thought that God would never do this, you’d have no problem answering the question either way.
Let’s say I believed in some sort of non-denominational, personal God, and you put the question to me. The specific answer I give is irrelevant - I might as well flip a coin. But let’s say I say no. Why is this not a problem for me? Because my God doesn’t have the track record to suggest that he would ask this of anyone (unlike the Christian God). And further, my God does not punish willful disobediance of His Will. Your God does. So the same question put to you is much more problematic. But again, not the fault of the question. That’s the fault of your faith that insists on playing both sides of the board.
