What if God asked you to kill your son?

  • Thread starter Thread starter devonsams
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
don’t think he would do it but hopefully I would have to courage to do it.
It doesn’t take courage to kill a helpless child.

Cowardly comes to mind.

In any event, what if it wasn’t your God telling you to kill your son, but was a symptom of a severe mental illness causing you to hear voices?

:eek:

On another matter, if a God did tell a believer to kill their own child for some arbitrary reason…why continue worshipping such a God?
 
God would never ask anyone to kill their son because God’s own son already died “Once for all.”

Jesus suffered, died, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven. No other son has to die, nor will it do any good for anyone’s son to die. It is done.

Anyone who thinks that God is telling them to kill their son desperate need of immediate psychological help. Anyone - non-demoninational, Catholic, atheist or otherwise - who asks the question “What if God asked you to kill your son” has exposed their complete ignorance of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.

-Tim-
 
Killing people and murdering people are the same. It’s the circular logic of the faithful that pretends otherwise.
Um, it’s not just the faithful who see a difference between the two. Our legal system is even more wishy-washy on it than the Catholic faith. In the Catholic faith, you have murder and killing. In our judicial system, you have various degrees of murder and various degrees of killing. Same goes with pretty much every legal system and code of ethics out there.

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.
So, me saying murder and killing are different and saying God wouldn’t have me commit murder is just silly, but you saying there are degrees of murder (some of which are moral) and you are the one to determine if it’s ok or not makes more sense? Sure.

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?
Now prove that your belief system is more valid than one that is 2k plus years old, in agreement with other widely used belief systems, and has been incorporated to a degree into at least European based legal and ethical systems.

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.
Why would I respond to someone who says they’d murder someone then tries to justify their response by redefining murder as somehow being ok some of the time. We all know murder is wrong and you’ve admitted you would murder someone if you had to. What makes it worse is you trying to justify it by saying not all murder is wrong. You are one immoral individual. That, or you made the mistake of answering a loaded question.
 
It’s not a loaded question at all. “Have you stopped beating your wife” is a loaded question because it assumes, a priori, that you have beaten your wife in the past. Even if you haven’t done that, you can’t answer the question truthfully with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ without confirming the assumption that you ever had beaten your wife in the first place.

‘What if God asked you to kill your son’ is a perfectly legitimate question, given that God has asked this of people before, and that Christians profess to love, worship and obey God’s will.
In the entire Bible, this has only happened once, as a test to Abraham by Gd. No other human being in the history of mankind has ever been asked to do this.
The only other human sacrifice was that of Christ who, as the son of G
d as a human being, allowed himself to be crucified in order to remit the sins of mankind.
 
God would never ask anyone to kill their son because God’s own son already died “Once for all.”

Jesus suffered, died, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven. No other son has to die, nor will it do any good for anyone’s son to die. It is done.

Anyone who thinks that God is telling them to kill their son desperate need of immediate psychological help. Anyone - non-demoninational, Catholic, atheist or otherwise - who asks the question “What if God asked you to kill your son” has exposed their complete ignorance of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.

-Tim-
👍 👍 ^^^This is the #1 answer.

As far as Isaac was concerned, God had no intention of allowing the boy to be killed. God tested Abraham so that Abraham would know he could trust God in all things.

My addition to this is from the NAB footnote to Matthew 5:22. Sacrificing children is and always has been absolutely abhorrent to God.
Gehenna: in Hebrew ge-hinnom, “Valley of Hinnom,” or ge Ben-hinnom, “Valley of the son of Hinnom,” southwest of Jerusalem, the center of an idolatrous cult during the monarchy in which children were offered in sacrifice [to Molech]. (see 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31).
Jeremiah 7:30-33 gives the detail and God’s wrathful response to anyone who would dare kill a child in the name of any god.
The people of Judah have done what is evil in my eyes, says the LORD. They have defiled the house which bears my name by setting up in it their abominable idols. **In the Valley of Ben-hinnom they have built the high place of Topheth to immolate in fire their sons and their daughters, such a thing as I never commanded or had in mind. **Therefore, beware! days will come, says the LORD, when Topheth and the Valley of Ben-hinnom will no longer be called such, but rather the Valley of Slaughter. For lack of space, Topheth will be a burial place. The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the field, which no one will drive away.
 
Precedent from the Old Testament can NOT be used in this discussion:

ARCANUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

  1. Although the divine renewal we have spoken of chiefly and directly affected men as constituted in the supernatural order of grace, nevertheless some of its precious and salutary fruits were also bestowed abundantly in the order of nature. Hence, not only individual men, but also the whole mass of the human race, have in every respect received no small degree of worthiness. For, so soon as Christian order was once established in the world, it became possible for all men, one by one, to learn what God’s fatherly providence is, and to dwell in it habitually, thereby fostering that hope of heavenly help which never confoundeth. From all this outflowed fortitude, self-control, constancy, and the evenness of a peaceful mind, together with many high virtues and noble deeds.
 
👍 👍 ^^^This is the #1 answer.

As far as Isaac was concerned, God had no intention of allowing the boy to be killed. God tested Abraham so that Abraham would know he could trust God in all things.

My addition to this is from the NAB footnote to Matthew 5:22. Sacrificing children is and always has been absolutely abhorrent to God.

Jeremiah 7:30-33 gives the detail and God’s wrathful response to anyone who would dare kill a child in the name of any god.
God could not order something that is immoral, even if He plans on thwarting the completion of the order.
 
Psalms 137:8-9 “happy shall he be who takes your (evil Babylon) little ones and dashes them against the rock!”

God ordered the Jews to kill: Num. 21:35; 31:17; 1 Sam. 15:3; 2 Sam. 22:19

But that was during a different time and place. God is the Lord of Life, but these things happened in times when grace was not as abundance, and nature weak. The wisest of men wasn’t even sure if there was an after-life (Ecclesiastes 3:11 and 9:3-6)!
 
On another matter, if a God did tell a believer to kill their own child for some arbitrary reason…why continue worshipping such a God?
Why would it be “arbitrary?”

Have you read Harry Potter?
 
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.
Personally, I believe this question is parasitic upon the idea of authority and perhaps even a derivative of the Euthyphro dilemma elucidated by Plato. Basically, it is a question of who or what has ultimate moral authority. Is God subject to the moral law or is the moral law subject to God? This can be rephrased as, “Does God have the right to take a human life?”

This must be answered before considering whether any human, acting on Divine command, is morally compelled to take another human life.

As a matter of fact, if God is the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent Creator of the universe, the necessary being that brings all else into existence and keeps it in existence, the One in whom all else is and has its being, then the question is simply devoid of meaning.
All meaning, all reality, all that exists comes from God, that would include our very existence and any “morally” credible thoughts we might have. Thoughts which we could only have because we have been created, by God, to be moral beings.

Furthermore, every human being dies. We are all mortal. Apparently, if God is the Creator and determiner of all existence, then humans do die because God has determined that to be the case. We are all under a death sentence. The divine command is that all of us, not just the son at the hands of his father, but each one of us have been sentenced to die by the fact of our mortality. That also means that none of us have the right to take another life because we have not been commanded to do so by God. His standing command is, “Thou shalt not intentionally kill another human being without just cause!”

The “just cause” conditional would include, for example, “in self-defense,” but could also be reasonably expanded to include, “if God by his inscrutable moral judgement commanded it.”

Atheists may not like this state of things and may rail against the very idea of a God who has made us mortal, but the fact that we are mortal means, that if God does exist then we die because of a determination of his. What right does the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator of all have to take life? Perhaps because all life belongs to him, he is the source of all life, Life itself, it is his to take or to give. If the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator of all has determined that some being is unfit to merit life, who is there to argue the case?

You wouldn’t be right, if you tried, because your lack of knowledge and goodness would mean any moral judgement you would make in the matter would be inferior to God’s. You could not have morally sufficient reasons to counter the decision of the infinitely superior moral Being, from whom all Good derives.

The answer would be, then, if, and this is an infinitely important conditional, if God commanded you to take any action, you would have absolutely no moral foundation upon which to deny the command.

I know that the atheists in the crowd will cry, “Foul!” here or “Moral monster!” but that response is not following the logic. We are talking about questioning or denying the judgement of an infinitely good, infinitely knowing Creator of all and source of all Life. Any contradictory action you would take, is by definition a morally inferior one, one that you would morally be obliged not to even consider.

Does that mean that just because you think God is giving you a command to kill someone, you should do so? Absolutely not! This is a hypothetical case based upon a condition that it is, in fact, God (with all the infinite superlatives) making the command, not just you (or anyone) thinking it is so.

We have no right to take another person’s life, but the fact that God gives life, originates life, conceives life and is Life itself, means he can determine who merits or does not merit to have it. It is his to give and his to take, by any means he deems acceptable, including by instrumental means, if he were to command it.
 
Why not answer, then, that you would do precisely as Abraham did --assume that God in His infinite wisdom and goodness was to be obeyed --make the preparations as Abraham did?

Because Scripture DOES have precedent --and you’ll note that Abraham’s willingness to obey God was what was righteous and he did NOT in fact kill his son.

It seems the person asking the question is presuming that God is ‘gonna kill the kid’ and the father/mother is either a nut or a monster–and of course God is too. . .

Was Abraham a nut or a monster for trusting in God?
Because someone will threaten to call CPS. I’ve personally seen this occur.
 
If I heard a voice telling me it was God and telling me to kill my Child, I would have myself committed.

If however I actually KNEW it was God, which is impossible, I still probably wouldn’t.

However I should assume, in that circumstance, that I would be stopped, because Christ is the fulfillment of the sacrificial order in the OT, and it’s possible at all that another sacrifice will be commanded for that reason, unless it would be prevented before coming to fruition.
 
Personally, I believe this question is parasitic upon the idea of authority and perhaps even a derivative of the Euthyphro dilemma elucidated by Plato. Basically, it is a question of who or what has ultimate moral authority. Is God subject to the moral law or is the moral law subject to God? This can be rephrased as, “Does God have the right to take a human life?”

This must be answered before considering whether any human, acting on Divine command, is morally compelled to take another human life.

As a matter of fact, if God is the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent Creator of the universe, the necessary being that brings all else into existence and keeps it in existence, the One in whom all else is and has its being, then the question is simply devoid of meaning.
All meaning, all reality, all that exists comes from God, that would include our very existence and any “morally” credible thoughts we might have. Thoughts which we could only have because we have been created, by God, to be moral beings.

Furthermore, every human being dies. We are all mortal. Apparently, if God is the Creator and determiner of all existence, then humans do die because God has determined that to be the case. We are all under a death sentence. The divine command is that all of us, not just the son at the hands of his father, but each one of us have been sentenced to die by the fact of our mortality. That also means that none of us have the right to take another life because we have not been commanded to do so by God. His standing command is, “Thou shalt not intentionally kill another human being without just cause!”

The “just cause” conditional would include, for example, “in self-defense,” but could also be reasonably expanded to include, “if God by his inscrutable moral judgement commanded it.”

Atheists may not like this state of things and may rail against the very idea of a God who has made us mortal, but the fact that we are mortal means, that if God does exist then we die because of a determination of his. What right does the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator of all have to take life? Perhaps because all life belongs to him, he is the source of all life, Life itself, it is his to take or to give. If the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator of all has determined that some being is unfit to merit life, who is there to argue the case?

You wouldn’t be right, if you tried, because your lack of knowledge and goodness would mean any moral judgement you would make in the matter would be inferior to God’s. You could not have morally sufficient reasons to counter the decision of the infinitely superior moral Being, from whom all Good derives.

The answer would be, then, if, and this is an infinitely important conditional, if God commanded you to take any action, you would have absolutely no moral foundation upon which to deny the command.

I know that the atheists in the crowd will cry, “Foul!” here or “Moral monster!” but that response is not following the logic. We are talking about questioning or denying the judgement of an infinitely good, infinitely knowing Creator of all and source of all Life. Any contradictory action you would take, is by definition a morally inferior one, one that you would morally be obliged not to even consider.

Does that mean that just because you think God is giving you a command to kill someone, you should do so? Absolutely not! This is a hypothetical case based upon a condition that it is, in fact, God (with all the infinite superlatives) making the command, not just you (or anyone) thinking it is so.

We have no right to take another person’s life, but the fact that God gives life, originates life, conceives life and is Life itself, means he can determine who merits or does not merit to have it. It is his to give and his to take, by any means he deems acceptable, including by instrumental means, if he were to command it.
All very well put. I just wish more Christians would own it like this whenever these discussions inevitably come up. Divine Command Theory is repulsive, but when you take it in its full measure, and don’t try to duck and weave around the rougher edges, it’s a sturdy philosophical basis from which to argue.

The problem is that Christians will often attempt square the model of Nazarene with a God who owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things. Dropping one or taking up the other one as it suits them. The result is messy theology.
 
All very well put. I just wish more Christians would own it like this whenever these discussions inevitably come up. Divine Command Theory is repulsive, but when you take it in its full measure, and don’t try to duck and weave around the rougher edges, it’s a sturdy philosophical basis from which to argue.

The problem is that Christians will often attempt square the model of Nazarene with a God who owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things. Dropping one or taking up the other one as it suits them. The result is messy theology.
My respect for you as a person of integrity grows with each entry you post. Thank you for the service you do to keep us all honest and not shoddy in defending beliefs. Personally, I hope you continue to call into question ideas that don’t seem right, partly because of your willingness to understand the other side even when you don’t agree, but mostly because you persist in asking the troubling questions that we should be asking ourselves if truth is really what we seek to grasp. :ballspin:
 
God was testing Abraham’s faith and his obedience. Issac was never killed as God said NO to Abraham killing his son.

Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldee’s. Mesopotamia (now Iraq), archeological findings have shown that child and adult sacrifices occurred frequently. The sacrifice of Abraham’s child would have been expected and acceptable with in Abraham’s day. Abraham was apart of the world he lived in. God was not in agreement human sacrifice - God was trying to stop human sacrifice completely through Abraham.

God is and always will be in-arguably AGAINST human sacrifice.
 
All very well put. I just wish more Christians would own it like this whenever these discussions inevitably come up. Divine Command Theory is repulsive, but when you take it in its full measure, and don’t try to duck and weave around the rougher edges, it’s a sturdy philosophical basis from which to argue.

The problem is that Christians will often attempt square the model of Nazarene with a God who owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things. Dropping one or taking up the other one as it suits them. The result is messy theology.
Ducking and weaving would be what you’ve done. Murder and killing being two completely different items in regards to morality- nonsense. The “correct” view, as put forth by you, is that murder and killing are the same, but somehow murder can be moral or immoral. That’s like saying the borrowing something is really theft, its just the moral type of theft. I guess in your world redefining terms and concepts is ok as long as it makes your argument valid.

Then there is your response to my loaded question. Did you respond “yes” or “no” (the same type of response prompted by the question given by the OP and the same type of response you kept crying about us believers not giving)? Nope, you first qualified your answer (not all murder is immoral) than gave your answer. In other words, you gave a similar non-response that you were crying about us believers giving. Double standard much?

I suggest you figure out how to put a self-supporting argument together before you start criticizing others.
 
God was testing Abraham’s faith and his obedience. Issac was never killed as God said NO to Abraham killing his son.

Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldee’s. Mesopotamia (now Iraq), archeological findings have shown that child and adult sacrifices occurred frequently. The sacrifice of Abraham’s child would have been expected and acceptable with in Abraham’s day. Abraham was apart of the world he lived in. God was not in agreement human sacrifice - God was trying to stop human sacrifice completely through Abraham.

God is and always will be in-arguably AGAINST human sacrifice.
:clapping:

MJ
 
… my God doesn’t have the track record to suggest that he would ask this of anyone (unlike the Christian God)…
I am not clear where this “God” of yours lives, but is he “Lord of life?” If he is, then you still need to explain why human beings have their lives taken from them, often in untimely fashion and for inexplicable reasons. Your “God” still needs to explain why he acts so capriciously.

The Christian God has determined that all human beings (except perhaps for two) merit death and therefore will or have died. For what reason does “your God” take human life, then?

Does your “God” allow killing in self-defense? Are there other justifiable reasons for killing? A police officer in the line of duty to protect an innocent life? Surely, your “God” would have morally justifiable reasons for allowing one person to kill another, no? In which case, could he not command the taking of a life for some justifiable reason that you could not fathom?

In other words, in theory, could your God not justifiably command you to take another human life for reasons beyond your ability to understand (given his omniscience)? The only way you could be sure that your God wouldn’t is if your God were identical to you. As soon as you admit the possibility of a God beyond your capacities, then short of claiming yourself to be omniscient and omnibenevolent, you leave yourself open to the possibility that this God of yours may act in ways beyond your understanding and control.

This may be why some have claimed the question to be a “loaded” one, after all.
The problem is that Christians will often attempt square the model of Nazarene with a God who owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things. Dropping one or taking up the other one as it suits them. The result is messy theology.
This paragraph requires some clarification, in light of the “your God” statements in a previous post. You seem to be implying that the “model of Nazarene” cannot be reconciled with the God of the Old Testament because the “older” God “owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things.” This is a crude way to express the apparent differences, but I am not clear that any conception of God can escape the problem, not even “your God.”

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the Creator/Sustainer of all that exists then
  1. he does indeed have dominion over us (not as crudely put, but essentially the same as “owns us.”
  2. can determine who or what merits to exist or not (can kill and order killing)
  3. claims an endlessly superior moral foundation (omniscience and omnibenevolence insure that this is true.)
In short, I am not clear how any concept of a God with the classic 3O “qualities”, not even yours, if you have one, escapes the problematic issues you seem to believe only apply to the Old Testament God.
 
Ducking and weaving would be what you’ve done. Murder and killing being two completely different items in regards to morality- nonsense. The “correct” view, as put forth by you, is that murder and killing are the same, but somehow murder can be moral or immoral. That’s like saying the borrowing something is really theft, its just the moral type of theft. I guess in your world redefining terms and concepts is ok as long as it makes your argument valid.
So I’ll ask you now - would you murder someone else to protect your child from being murdered (given no middle option that would spare them both)?

I suspect your answer is yes, except that you’d qualify your answer by saying that your act would merely being “killing” to prevent a separate “murder.” My problem again, is that this distinction rests on circular logic. Murder is immoral, except when it isn’t, in which case it’s not “murder,” it’s merely “killing.” Phew! That was close. Almost sinned there!

I’m willing to let my definition of murder rest on an objective standard, unburdened by religio-metaphysical distinctions. Killing a human being is murder. Whether it’s in the process of robbing a convenience store, or on a lethal injection table, or as part of an act of saving a separate human being.

Now, is all murder immoral? Well, by the standard I just laid out, unless you’re a total pacifist, I don’t see how you can possibly say yes. I’m not a psychopath, or a sociopath, but I am forced to admit that there are people in this world, both real and hypothetical, for whom guns were invented to shoot. A man about to murder his child to appease what he imagines is his God fits the bill, in my view. (This, again, stipulates that we have no other option between killing him or letting him kill his child).

Now, to address a separate point - why is this not a categorically immoral act? Because my moral code rests on an objective basis that distinguishes between (broadly speaking) a Good Universe and a Bad Universe. And further, a foundational assumption that “Good” is Better Than “Bad.” Now, they key question - which Universe is Better (that is to say, in which Universe are we Better Off)? The Universe where a man can kill his child and walk away? Or a Universe where his death prevents this from happening? In which Universe would you be safer? Would you be more comfortable living next door to the man (he having killed his child), or the man’s child (having survived his father’s attempt to kill him)? To me, this is a trivially easy question.

Not all of them are so trivially easy. Sometimes it’s an open question whether one course of action is more moral than another. This, however, does nothing to undercut the basis we’re working from (Good is still Better Than Bad). Sometimes, disagreements occur. But those disagreements can occur between intelligent people with a shared understanding of reality. And we may, in time, come to an agreement on moral questions that trouble us today.
Then there is your response to my loaded question. Did you respond “yes” or “no” (the same type of response prompted by the question given by the OP and the same type of response you kept crying about us believers not giving)? Nope, you first qualified your answer (not all murder is immoral) than gave your answer. In other words, you gave a similar non-response that you were crying about us believers giving. Double standard much?
There is a double standard, actually, but it’s not the one you’re thinking of. The two standards in play here is the moral basis you’re living under and the one I’m living under. Our originating frameworks are different, so therefore, we are not bound by the same rules in how to respond to these questions.
 
So I’ll ask you now - would you murder someone else to protect your child from being murdered (given no middle option that would spare them both)?

I suspect your answer is yes, except that you’d qualify your answer by saying that your act would merely being “killing” to prevent a separate “murder.” My problem again, is that this distinction rests on circular logic. Murder is immoral, except when it isn’t, in which case it’s not “murder,” it’s merely “killing.” Phew! That was close. Almost sinned there!

I’m willing to let my definition of murder rest on an objective standard, unburdened by religio-metaphysical distinctions. Killing a human being is murder. Whether it’s in the process of robbing a convenience store, or on a lethal injection table, or as part of an act of saving a separate human being.

Now, is all murder immoral? Well, by the standard I just laid out, unless you’re a total pacifist, I don’t see how you can possibly say yes. I’m not a psychopath, or a sociopath, but I am forced to admit that there are people in this world, both real and hypothetical, for whom guns were invented to shoot. A man about to murder his child to appease what he imagines is his God fits the bill, in my view. (This, again, stipulates that we have no other option between killing him or letting him kill his child).

Now, to address a separate point - why is this not a categorically immoral act? Because my moral code rests on an objective basis that distinguishes between (broadly speaking) a Good Universe and a Bad Universe. And further, a foundational assumption that “Good” is Better Than “Bad.” Now, they key question - which Universe is Better (that is to say, in which Universe are we Better Off)? The Universe where a man can kill his child and walk away? Or a Universe where his death prevents this from happening? In which Universe would you be safer? Would you be more comfortable living next door to the man (he having killed his child), or the man’s child (having survived his father’s attempt to kill him)? To me, this is a trivially easy question.

Not all of them are so trivially easy. Sometimes it’s an open question whether one course of action is more moral than another. This, however, does nothing to undercut the basis we’re working from (Good is still Better Than Bad). Sometimes, disagreements occur. But those disagreements can occur between intelligent people with a shared understanding of reality. And we may, in time, come to an agreement on moral questions that trouble us today.

There is a double standard, actually, but it’s not the one you’re thinking of. The two standards in play here is the moral basis you’re living under and the one I’m living under. Our originating frameworks are different, so therefore, we are not bound by the same rules in how to respond to these questions.
Your entire argument rests on your abnormal definition of murder being correct and the Catholic distinction between murder and killing being incorrect. Put simply-

Catholic
-causing the death of another in an immoral manner- murder
-causing the death of another in a moral manner- killing

Yours
-causing the death of another in an immoral manner- murder, immoral
-causing the death of another in a moral manner- murder, moral

You are redefining murder and then basing your entire argument on this abnormal (and I’m not just saying abnormal in regards as to how the concept and term are used within Catholic teachings, your definition is also abnormal in regards to our amoral judicial system) definition in order to validate your argument. Your posts boil down to word games and self serving rationalizations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top