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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorns,
God spoke to Abraham who knew with whom he was speaking.
If that and other parts of the OT (Samuel 15: 1-19) are what you are referring to, then it is something else you are asking.
Your using the phrase “Would it be wrong . . .” suggests this is something you are dealing with rather than an issue regarding the nature of God and how He is revealed in the OT>
Clearly, God cannot give an immoral command.
You may wish to read the many commentaries that are out there regarding the OT.
Try: jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
 
Obviously the story of Abraham comes to mind, but with all the teaching and talks of “teesting the spirits” and “by their fruits you shall know them”, would that be sufficient justification for refusing an immoral command (such as kill your son) given by God?

Since the fruit of this command is death, I’d be inclined to think this spirit was Satan appearing as an angel of light, and so it would be a no brainer and I would reject the command. But what if it was God and thought it was Satan? Would He understand that I did it out of love , or would He hold it against me for disobeying His command?
It’s a good question but I don’t think we need worry because God is incapable of an immoral command.

I don’t think that we entirely understand the story of Abraham because God had already pre-thought up the offering: ‘ram caught in the thicket’ (Gen. 22:13).
 
Samuel 15: 1-19

"I am the one theLordsent to anointfyou king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from theLord.2This is what theLordAlmighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekitesgfor what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3Now go, attack the Amalekites and totallyhdestroyaall that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
This is a really good point for sure. Bear in mind that you’re dealing with a completely different sets of rules in this generation - back then it was kill or be killed. Nevertheless, you’re right, it makes no sense and why would the animals also have to perish??

This is where I don’t believe we know the whole story.
 
This is a really good point for sure. Bear in mind that you’re dealing with a completely different sets of rules in this generation - back then it was kill or be killed. Nevertheless, you’re right, it makes no sense and why would the animals also have to perish??

This is where I don’t believe we know the whole story.
Even moreso than the animals, but the innocent children and infants.

This doesnt appear to be the same God that disproves of abortion. I would be inclined to think that message in Samuel was from Satan, once again.
 
Even moreso than the animals, but the innocent children and infants.

This doesnt appear to be the same God that disproves of abortion. I would be inclined to think that message in Samuel was from Satan, once again.
And you’re right, human beings are more important than animals but what I meant was - why the animals? What would the animals have to do with anything??

If you kill the parents then who’s going to take care of the children? Not that I’m saying it’s right, it’s just that the whole thing doesn’t make any sense. I mean I know it’s there in the Bible and I’m mystified but there has to be another explanation.

What message in Samuel?
 
Thorns,
God spoke to Abraham who knew with whom he was speaking.
If that and other parts of the OT (Samuel 15: 1-19) are what you are referring to, then it is something else you are asking.
Your using the phrase “Would it be wrong . . .” suggests this is something you are dealing with rather than an issue regarding the nature of God and how He is revealed in the OT>
Clearly, God cannot give an immoral command.
You may wish to read the many commentaries that are out there regarding the OT.
Try: jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
Jimmy seems to be saying mostly that God permits evil (which I dont have a problem with) and that God has given the gift of life and so He can take it back (which I dont have a problem with). But those ideas are very different from instructing humans to exterminate or kill other humans, when God can take human life on His own without any help.

This also popped out at me from the link:

“Let’s look back at God’s plan of the ages for a moment. If we beginwith the premise that God wished to create for himself a distinctpeople that could carry the knowledge of him to the world then it islogical for him to give this people a homeland ** in which he could purifythem from the corrupting influences of the cultures around them”**

Why couldn’t God purify all cultures at the same time accordingly instead of just one? Would the message and good news of God been spread more effectively and with less bloodshed and force if He had a personal relationship with all tribes like He did with the Israelites? Why did He select one tribe and then instruct that tribe to engage in genocide? This sounds a lot like human behavior and not divine nature.
 
And you’re right, human beings are more important than animals but what I meant was - why the animals? What would the animals have to do with anything??

If you kill the parents then who’s going to take care of the children? Not that I’m saying it’s right, it’s just that the whole thing doesn’t make any sense. I mean I know it’s there in the Bible and I’m mystified but there has to be another explanation.

What message in Samuel?
See post #20.
 
See post #20.
Go back a few hundred years and try to imagine what life was like then…then try going back thousands of years…you have no idea of what the times were like but it was quite barbaric, kill or be killed.

And, it just doesn’t jive with the rest of the Bible (“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27).

Besides you failed to provide ample Bible references: you must find all verses relating to the same topic, put those together and then you will have an argument.
 
Wow… tons of great questions in this thread! Let’s see if I can’t do justice to answers to some of them…
Why couldn’t God purify all cultures at the same time accordingly instead of just one? Would the message and good news of God been spread more effectively and with less bloodshed and force if He had a personal relationship with all tribes like He did with the Israelites? Why did He select one tribe and then instruct that tribe to engage in genocide? This sounds a lot like human behavior and not divine nature.
Thorns, your questions could be interpreted as asking, “why didn’t God force all nations to be pure at the same time?”… but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking. (After all, if God forced us, then He would be taking back the gift of free will that He gave us. So… if that’s what you were thinking, there’s your answer right there: God never forces actions upon us.) But, what I think you’re really asking is, “if God was willing to let the Israelites have the opportunity to come to Him, then why didn’t He extend that opportunity to everyone, all at once?”

That answer is pretty straightforward: have you read the Old Testament and seen how absolutely pitifully the Israelites responded to God’s invitation? Time and again, they sinned, and disobeyed God, and failed to live up to the promises that they made to Him. So, I ask you: if God’s own chosen people were so unable to fulfill God’s will… then how do you think that the whole world – who had no relationship with God anything like the relationship that the Israelites had with Him! – would have fared? With that in mind, I don’t think it’s a great stretch to suggest that God’s plan was, in fact, the best possible approach to bringing humanity back to God. 😉
40.png
dmwessel:
And you’re right, human beings are more important than animals but what I meant was - why the animals? What would the animals have to do with anything??

I mean I know it’s there in the Bible and I’m mystified but there has to be another explanation.

What message in Samuel?
If you read the Scriptures carefully, you’ll see that God places these peoples “under the ban;” sometimes, you’ll see it translated as “doom.” The word that’s being used here is the word that has come down into English as ‘harem’. (You know – 1001 Arabian Nights, sultans, eunuchs: ‘harem’!) The word itself carries a meaning of ‘something forbidden’ – the ladies in the sultan’s harem were forbidden to anyone but the sultan himself, and the resources placed under the ‘doom’ were forbidden to anyone but God.

In those days, kings went to war when the weather cleared up each year. And, each year, kings would go out on campaign, in an attempt to capture land and resources. By ‘resources’, I mean precious items (gold, silver, etc), food, animals, and sadly, even people (for use as slaves and wives). By placing these people under the ban, God was telling the Israelites, “go fight these people over there. But, this isn’t a normal war, in which you enrich yourselves from the spoils of war; this is combat that I command, and from which I – and only I – will benefit: with these people gone from the equation, they will not tempt you to abandon Me.”

So… why animals? What’s the message here? Animals were resources – God wasn’t trying to make His people rich, but only faithful. He didn’t want them to be boastful at their victories, but properly dependent on God’s mercy. The message is, “trust in Me alone, and I will provide for you.”

(Just to give credit where it’s due: I first encountered this interpretation in a “Great Adventure Timeline” Bible Study (the one that Jeff Cavins created). Good stuff… if you ever have a chance to attend one at a parish near you, I guarantee you won’t be disappointed!) 😉
 
Is the command itself to kill your son not objectively against Church teaching and against Natural Law?
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?
 
Wow… tons of great questions in this thread! Let’s see if I can’t do justice to answers to some of them…

Thorns, your questions could be interpreted as asking, “why didn’t God force all nations to be pure at the same time?”… but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking. (After all, if God forced us, then He would be taking back the gift of free will that He gave us. So… if that’s what you were thinking, there’s your answer right there: God never forces actions upon us.) But, what I think you’re really asking is, “if God was willing to let the Israelites have the opportunity to come to Him, then why didn’t He extend that opportunity to everyone, all at once?”

That answer is pretty straightforward: have you read the Old Testament and seen how absolutely pitifully the Israelites responded to God’s invitation? Time and again, they sinned, and disobeyed God, and failed to live up to the promises that they made to Him. So, I ask you: if God’s own chosen people were so unable to fulfill God’s will… then how do you think that the whole world – who had no relationship with God anything like the relationship that the Israelites had with Him! – would have fared? With that in mind, I don’t think it’s a great stretch to suggest that God’s plan was, in fact, the best possible approach to bringing humanity back to God. 😉

If you read the Scriptures carefully, you’ll see that God places these peoples “under the ban;” sometimes, you’ll see it translated as “doom.” The word that’s being used here is the word that has come down into English as ‘harem’. (You know – 1001 Arabian Nights, sultans, eunuchs: ‘harem’!) The word itself carries a meaning of ‘something forbidden’ – the ladies in the sultan’s harem were forbidden to anyone but the sultan himself, and the resources placed under the ‘doom’ were forbidden to anyone but God.

In those days, kings went to war when the weather cleared up each year. And, each year, kings would go out on campaign, in an attempt to capture land and resources. By ‘resources’, I mean precious items (gold, silver, etc), food, animals, and sadly, even people (for use as slaves and wives). By placing these people under the ban, God was telling the Israelites, “go fight these people over there. But, this isn’t a normal war, in which you enrich yourselves from the spoils of war; this is combat that I command, and from which I – and only I – will benefit: with these people gone from the equation, they will not tempt you to abandon Me.”

So… why animals? What’s the message here? Animals were resources – God wasn’t trying to make His people rich, but only faithful. He didn’t want them to be boastful at their victories, but properly dependent on God’s mercy. The message is, “trust in Me alone, and I will provide for you.”

(Just to give credit where it’s due: I first encountered this interpretation in a “Great Adventure Timeline” Bible Study (the one that Jeff Cavins created). Good stuff… if you ever have a chance to attend one at a parish near you, I guarantee you won’t be disappointed!) 😉
I’m sorry but it just does not make sense that God would punish the innocent or ignorant in order to make a point. That’s not the God that I see portrayed in the Bible.
 
I’m sorry but it just does not make sense that God would punish the innocent or ignorant in order to make a point. That’s not the God that I see portrayed in the Bible.
Fair enough. Explain to me, please, the nature of the ‘punishment’? You should be attempting to be able to explain it in a way that outweighs (1) the inevitability of death, (2) the brutality of the culture of the day, (3) the good of eternal life as opposed to human life on earth, and (4) the good of the plan of salvation that God has for all humanity, right? 🙂
 
Fair enough. Explain to me, please, the nature of the ‘punishment’? You should be attempting to be able to explain it in a way that outweighs (1) the inevitability of death, (2) the brutality of the culture of the day, (3) the good of eternal life as opposed to human life on earth, and (4) the good of the plan of salvation that God has for all humanity, right? 🙂
Death and the idea of punishment was introduced only after the fall…brutality, sin and all things wrong with this world can be attributed to the ‘god of this world, Satan’ (2 Cor. 4:4).
 
Death and the idea of punishment was introduced only after the fall…brutality, sin and all things wrong with this world can be attributed to the ‘god of this world, Satan’ (2 Cor. 4:4).
OK, but earlier, you attributed the ‘punishment’ to God, not to the ‘fall of man’ or to Satan; you said, “it just does not make sense that God would punish the innocent.” If you’re going to claim that my explanation doesn’t work because it posits an unjust god, then let’s see where you claim that the injustice lies… 😉
 
Fair enough. Explain to me, please, the nature of the ‘punishment’? You should be attempting to be able to explain it in a way that outweighs (1) the inevitability of death, (2) the brutality of the culture of the day, (3) the good of eternal life as opposed to human life on earth, and (4) the good of the plan of salvation that God has for all humanity, right? 🙂
Huh?? I said that God does not punish, otherwise everyone in the world would perish instantaneously.

Regarding this comment to another person:
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?

Apples and oranges - they’re the same thing!:confused:
 
Huh?? I said that God does not punish, otherwise everyone in the world would perish instantaneously.
Maybe it’s because it’s late and I’m getting logy, but…

your problem with my explanation is that, to you, my explanation implies that God is punishing innocent people. Right? Now… I understand that you believe that God doesn’t punish innocent people (I don’t believe that, either!); but, in the context of my take on the passage in question, why is it that you believe that it demonstrates that God is punishing the innocent? That’s my question to you!
Regarding this comment to another person:
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?
Apples and oranges - they’re the same thing!:confused:
That’s exactly my point! There’s nothing about the Abraham/Isaac story that is inherently immoral in the father/son relationship. So, if we want to say that there is immorality there, then we have to ask the question whether it’s always immoral to kill another human. (Hint: it isn’t; there are circumstances in which killing isn’t immoral.) Therefore, the original assertion – that it is implicitly against natural law to kill one’s own son – fails the test of logic. 😉
 
Maybe it’s because it’s late and I’m getting logy, but…

your problem with my explanation is that, to you, my explanation implies that God is punishing innocent people. Right? Now… I understand that you believe that God doesn’t punish innocent people (I don’t believe that, either!); but, in the context of my take on the passage in question, why is it that you believe that it demonstrates that God is punishing the innocent? That’s my question to you!
Oh I see what you are getting at now?

My answer is that small children and infants cannot be anything but ignorant in the sense of innocence and God does not judge ignorance as he did not judge Saul (Paul the Apostle) for his impiety due to ignorance.

For God to destroy would be contrary to His nature. After-all, God is love. Why would he destroy those he came to save?

And even husbands defending wives and wives defending children is also an act of love and why would they be judged for it?

With regards to animals; why would these animals in this story be different from the cattle in the story of Jonah that God wanted spared?

A command to kill and a command to “if your enemy is hungry, feed him”! Something doesn’t add up as God is not a person of contradictions.
That’s exactly my point! There’s nothing about the Abraham/Isaac story that is inherently immoral in the father/son relationship. So, if we want to say that there is immorality there, then we have to ask the question whether it’s always immoral to kill another human. (Hint: it isn’t; there are circumstances in which killing isn’t immoral.) Therefore, the original assertion – that it is implicitly against natural law to kill one’s own son – fails the test of logic. 😉
It would be immoral (in my mind) for God to ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. How many throughout history have thought that God was asking them to do likewise and killed their own children - today the same would be arrested for murder in most countries.

I think again that something is missing about the Abraham/Isaac story…if God had asked for such a sacrifice, why did he then provide the ‘ram in the thicket’? It seems to be that God was preventing Abraham from folly. Then again, Abraham walked and talked with angels, and how many of us can claim that?

I do see in the Bible that one can kill in defense of themselves and their family. David and his men pursued and killed those that had taken their families hostage. David (as any rational man worth his salt) would have done it anyway without stopping to consult God on the issue.

Should David and his men have left their families at the mercy of their captors? And should the rest of the world not have defended itself against Hitler? Can you imagine if Hitler was ruling today? The world would be his cradle and anyone who disagreed with him, would die.

No, there is something that we are missing.
 
Samuel 15: 1-19

"I am the one theLordsent to anointfyou king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from theLord.2This is what theLordAlmighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekitesgfor what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt*.3Now go, attack the Amalekites and totallyhdestroyaall that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’*”
How is that immoral? Did you read the entire context of that? The fact is…as your own quote shows, that this was commanded to avenge the attack by the Amalekites upon the Israelites when they were vulnerable. God had already promised to deal with anyone who mistreated them and so how is this immoral? The immoral action was the ambush by the Amalekites.

Look at the laws that God gave to the Jews. If they were to live as He commanded, they were also told to cut off anyone who was immoral from among them. Had they done that then they would have been less likely to have strayed as often as they did. This is the same reason that we are taught not to allow ourselves to develop attachments to sin.
 
Is the command itself to kill your son not objectively against Church teaching and against Natural Law?

Of course I know God can raise the dead, but Satan cant. And if a person misjudged and thought it was God, the person would remain dead.

So i guess my issue is the very command itself, regardless of who issues it because Im judging the fruits of that action, not necessarily the person.whos commanding.

But to get this straight with everyone to further illustrate my point and hang up, for those who say anything God says, by definition, is moral…

If Satan says to sleep with my neighbors wife = Immoral

If God says to sleep with my neighbors wife = Moral

Would that be correct? The command is the very same, but it all depends on who’s giving it? Would it be safe to assume that morality is actually subjective?
The issue is not morality or immorality of any command, but one of trust.

What if God commands you to die for him? Do you trust that he will raise you from the dead? What if Satan threatens to kill you unless you forsake God - do you trust that God will raise you from the dead?

The story of Abraham and Issac is not about obedience to commands but about trust. Even Adam and Eve didn’t trust God. Abraham is the first person to trust God - that is why he is the Father of Faith.

Trusting God is the whole point of the story of Abraham and Issac.

-Tim-
 
God had already promised to deal with anyone who mistreated them and so how is this immoral? The immoral action was the ambush by the Amalekites…
Surely the Amalekite children and infants were not responsible for any ambush. They were innocent, and yet they were punished by death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top