Would it be wrong to disobey an "immoral" command given by God Himself?

[Thorns]

Let me make sure I understand your question: are you asking whether the particular command to kill one’s own son is immoral, or whether the command to kill anyone’s son is immoral?

After all, there are many instances in which it’s not immoral to kill someone else’s son: capital punishment (moreso in the past than today, of course), wartime, in self-defense. So, are you asserting that the immorality proceeds from the command to kill one’s own son?

In light of this distinction, it would seem that it is not per se immoral to command a person to kill his own son (since sons may be targets of morally licit killing, even at the hands of their fathers) , so we’re left with the only option that you’re suggesting that it’s immoral to kill under any circumstances. Yet, we can’t hold to that assertion, since we know that there are cases in which killing isn’t immoral. So, on the face of it, the answer to your question is “no, the command itself to kill one’s own son isn’t agains Church teaching and against Natural Law.”

Perhaps you’d like to have the opportunity to re-phrase your question in a way that gets closer to the heart of what you’re trying to ask?

Ok, let me rephrase… Is it wrong to kill anyone (not speaking of self defense or in a just war) “just because?”

 

[Aloysium]

Ok, let me rephrase… Is it wrong to kill anyone (not speaking of self defense or in a just war) “just because?”

Matt 5:21-25 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

 

[Ohana]

Huh, interesting question!
On one hand, if God so ordered , it could not be immoral.
On the other hand, it it appeared immoral in the light of accumulated knowledge about God and His commandments, there would be a serious question of whether God is the One who commanded.

 

[Thorns]

Matt 5:21-25 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

Is the God who says we are in danger of hell for calling another a fool the same God who ordered innocent infants be put to death? Is it the same God who disproves of abortion?

I am confused as to who God is and what His nature truly is.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, let me rephrase… Is it wrong to kill anyone (not speaking of self defense or in a just war) “just because?”

Aah… you’re asking a different question, then, aren’t you??? You’re not asking “is it wrong to kill?”, but rather, “is it wrong to murder someone?”

In fact, the Hebrew word used the Decalogue (“thou shalt not kill”) has the connotation ‘murder’ and not just killing in general. So, I think you’ve made the correct distinction: yes, murder is sinful.

But, the reason that self-defense of oneself or others isn’t murder – in the proper circumstances, it’s defense of life. And, capital punishment isn’t murder – when appropriate (and granted, these days, it’s a rare case in which we might consider it appropriate), it’s a means to protect society from an uncontrollable criminal aggressor.

In short: through His moral law, God ‘tells’ us when it’s permissible to take a human life. When He ‘commands’ it, then, killing isn’t murder, and therefore, it is morally licit.

Fair enough?

 

[Gorgias]

Is the God who says we are in danger of hell for calling another a fool the same God who ordered innocent infants be put to death?

Here’s the thing, though: the Israelites didn’t do it. Just as in the Abraham story, God commanded something that boggles our 21st-century imagination. But, in the Abraham story, Abraham was about to actually fulfill God’s command, so God had to stop him and countermand His order. In the story of the battle with the Amakelites, the Israelites (and in particular, King Saul) failed to obey the order: the women and children weren’t slaughtered. Therefore, God didn’t have to stay the Israelites’ hands.

(How do we know that he didn’t follow God’s command? Well, we explicitly see him failing to kill the king of the Amakelites, and we see him bringing back animals and loot. Later in the Bible, we see David fighting against Amakelites, so clearly, the Israelites didn’t slaughter their women and children.)

I am confused as to who God is and what His nature truly is.

If God had allowed truly innocent people to be slaughtered, then I might see your point. However, He didn’t, so I’m not certain where the confusion is coming from…

 

[Thorns]

Here’s the thing, though: the Israelites didn’t do it. Just as in the Abraham story, God commanded something that boggles our 21st-century imagination. But, in the Abraham story, Abraham was about to actually fulfill God’s command, so God had to stop him and countermand His order. In the story of the battle with the Amakelites, the Israelites (and in particular, King Saul) failed to obey the order: the women and children weren’t slaughtered. Therefore, God didn’t have to stay the Israelites’ hands.

(How do we know that he didn’t follow God’s command? Well, we explicitly see him failing to kill the king of the Amakelites, and we see him bringing back animals and loot. Later in the Bible, we see David fighting against Amakelites, so clearly, the Israelites didn’t slaughter their women and children.)

If God had allowed truly innocent people to be slaughtered, then I might see your point. However, He didn’t, so I’m not certain where the confusion is coming from…

You’re correct in that no one was killed, but at the time of the initial command is the point where I am stuck. Before being able to proceed, I would have to know who commands this of me.

And to figure out who commands this, I would have to look at the fruits in which this command would bear and make up my mind from there.

 

[Thorns]

Aah… you’re asking a different question, then, aren’t you??? You’re not asking “is it wrong to kill?”, but rather, “is it wrong to murder someone?”

In fact, the Hebrew word used the Decalogue (“thou shalt not kill”) has the connotation ‘murder’ and not just killing in general. So, I think you’ve made the correct distinction: yes, murder is sinful.

But, the reason that self-defense of oneself or others isn’t murder – in the proper circumstances, it’s defense of life. And, capital punishment isn’t murder – when appropriate (and granted, these days, it’s a rare case in which we might consider it appropriate), it’s a means to protect society from an uncontrollable criminal aggressor.

In short: through His moral law, God ‘tells’ us when it’s permissible to take a human life. When He ‘commands’ it, then, killing isn’t murder, and therefore, it is morally licit.

Fair enough?

Almost. The part in there about the infants is what troubles me, even if it didnt happen, but just that it was commanded is enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Gorgias]

The part in there about the infants is what troubles me, even if it didnt happen, but just that it was commanded is enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

That makes sense. Here’s the thing, though: the reason that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth is that is so far outside our 21st-century conception of moral activity. If someone told you, “in order to raise your children properly, you need to beat them regularly,” you’d be aghast, wouldn’t you? Yet, if someone told your great-grandparents that same thing, I’m betting they would have agreed with them – that was part of the culturally-accepted approach back then.

So, if someone handed you a Bible that said that God commanded a parent to utilize corporal punishment on his children, you’d be shocked, wouldn’t you? Yet, we see that our reaction to a command is based not on God and His plans, but on us and our cultural sensitivities. In the time of Saul, God’s commands wouldn’t have caused the people to bat an eyelash. Yet, is God justified in giving a command that appears immoral, even if it wasn’t considered as such back then? Well, the argument I’ve proposed is that God knew that they wouldn’t obey, so it’s not immoral for God to test them in the way that He did.

 

[Thorns]

That makes sense. Here’s the thing, though: the reason that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth is that is so far outside our 21st-century conception of moral activity. If someone told you, “in order to raise your children properly, you need to beat them regularly,” you’d be aghast, wouldn’t you? Yet, if someone told your great-grandparents that same thing, I’m betting they would have agreed with them – that was part of the culturally-accepted approach back then.

So, if someone handed you a Bible that said that God commanded a parent to utilize corporal punishment on his children, you’d be shocked, wouldn’t you? Yet, we see that our reaction to a command is based not on God and His plans, but on us and our cultural sensitivities. In the time of Saul, God’s commands wouldn’t have caused the people to bat an eyelash. Yet, is God justified in giving a command that appears immoral, even if it wasn’t considered as such back then? Well, the argument I’ve proposed is that God knew that they wouldn’t obey, so it’s not immoral for God to test them in the way that He did.

Either that or the image of this death-commanding God seems to be totally at odds with the image I have of Jesus. Jesus never seemed to test anyones faith in this way, He always seemed to want to encourage and show people so that they may believe. He showed mercy and forgiveness, taught us to love our enemies.

Btw, corporal punishment is very different from killing an innocent infant. As to the people.not batting an eyelash, well, they were so used to such horrible acts this was just another one that wouldn’t have been a big deal to them, though it doesnt make it right in any century. Societal norms dont dictate objective morality.

 

[Gorgias]

Either that or the image of this death-commanding God seems to be totally at odds with the image I have of Jesus. Jesus never seemed to test anyones faith in this way, He always seemed to want to encourage and show people so that they may believe. He showed mercy and forgiveness, taught us to love our enemies.

Fair enough, but Jesus also said that he wasn’t there to change God’s commands, just to show a more perfect way. Inasmuch as the Mosaic covenant was meant for people in a certain Sitz im Leben, it spoke to their needs in that time and their ability to follow God’s laws. I’m reminded of Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 3 about being ready to consume meat or only being ready to consume milk.

We set up a false dichotomy when we suggest that God and Jesus are at odds.

Btw, corporal punishment is very different from killing an innocent infant.

Agreed; and please know, I’m not suggesting that they are equivalent. Yet, the principle still holds.

Societal norms dont dictate objective morality.

Nor do I suggest that they do. However, societal norms are the stepping-off point from which we have the ability (or inability) to perceive the truths of God’s self-revelation. If the societal norms of the day are too far from the objective truth of God, then we have a hard time seeing them for what they are – and a yet more difficult time following them! So, God’s commands then are necessarily different than what they are now.

 

[pnewton]

The question is an impossibility. This may be a simple answer, but it is the only answer suitable to an impossible question. Morality is not subjective and is defined by the Creator. It makes as much sense as how does one swim without water. One of the two premises must be wrong. Either it is not God or it is not an immoral command.

 

[Thorns]

The question is an impossibility. This may be a simple answer, but it is the only answer suitable to an impossible question. Morality is not subjective and is defined by the Creator. It makes as much sense as how does one swim without water. One of the two premises must be wrong. Either it is not God or it is not an immoral command.

Your last sentence is what sparked this thread and was my original question. How do you know its God commanding or if it isnt?

 

[pnewton]

Your last sentence is what sparked this thread and was my original question. How do you know its God commanding or if it isnt?

It’s not, probably. He has already spoken and we know what has been said. So stick with what is known.