Featured Did God Command Murder?

It's not that anyone is trying to mis-represent your position....it's that it appears to be changing every 5-6 posts or so....I must be misunderstanding you. You state something about Abraham's being a law unto himself...(legally) and use that to support the notion that it somehow has any effect whatsoever on the moral implications of what he does or does not do.....Maybe you should have clarified?

I do not care about your obsession with Fletcher....he is insignifigant, he was only originally brought up by you so that you could use him as a source of well-poisoning. Moral Relativism, which is what it is, has existed long before him in numerous forms and will continue to until the Lord returns...There is "nothing new under the Sun" at least (according to the Bible). Fletcher espoused nothing "originally"; lies come from the Father of them and they are merely the same lies with different nomenclature...I know moral relativism when I see it. moral relativism of any kind is abhorrent to God....including what some call "society says" or "society does" relativism....which you seem to espouse with this here:

.

Also....(depending on his identity) a qualifier I intentionally used before, so as to avoid this very objection I thought you might place, he might very well have been. Abraham's giving or offering of a tithe to Melchizedek might very well have been not a recognition of mere Spiritual position....but also a respectful recognition of him as A civil authority of some kind, possibly due a certain level of civil respect, but it is really neither here nor there.

Of course it's a trap.... it was designed to expose the poverty of the logic you are using, hence your refusal to answer it, by complaining that it is either "personal" here:

or raising an objection about the ontological reality of a hypothetical situation such as you do here:

I could answer it......I would lie, and feel perfectly morally upright in so doing...what would you do?

 

Not to parse words....but I never said OVER Abraham, I would not have...you are indeed correct... he was not. It's not critical though...

No, fair enough, I know you are not a moral relativist. I was suggesting something about the logical conclusion of some of your statements...

I was trying to contend....with my posts about civil government earlier....that Abraham indeed would have even from a civil perspective considered this a legal evil, it is debatable, of course, I was just throwing it out there....I am appealing to several Theologians and commentators who suggest that Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. This is something of God's establishment of purpose in civil Government about things such as murder et. al. I did not go into detail, thus your confusion as to what I was trying to convey....I assumed you would have followed where I was going with it...I was not very clear though. (One gets lazy sometimes) :laugh:

Yeah....only they are inextricably interrelated....and well...you did make the mistake of mentioning it in your OP....

You know as well as I do, that to blood-thirsty Baptists.....this is more than enough invitation to debate :smilewinkgrin: Sorry, by specifically trying to mention your desire NOT to re-engage that debate...well, it was blood in the water....We aren't peaceful "lilacs-and-springtime" Methodists after all, are we? he he

 

A linguist or a mind reader? Either way you appear evasive to me.

Now who is making the command? It's all related because it all has to do with the same principle regarding the fact that obedience to God is more important than following a set of rules...but you already know that because you made my point when you admitted that the time and circumstances were different making the act not sinful.

More commands? How rude.

No, its was a warning to steer clear of that common fallacy. Instead of dealing with the supposition posed you offer a new, more conducive supposition, to fit your view.

There is no trick, just your unwillingness to admit it was right of Abraham to follow God's command, just as it was right for Rahab to hide the spies.

Then we shouldn't be disagreeing here. Would you have done what Rahab did?

Sounds like someone really wants to avoid that subject. I wonder why? :wavey:

 

Yes, I am a fellow Dispy, good to know someone else is willing to "fragment" the revelation as the convenant types like to say.

 

Us dissenters honestly believe/believed this was a back-handed way of doing the same thing....sorry....granted...it assumes we thought ill of you, but well...I think we saw this as a backwards way of re-hashing the same argument, they are similar...and as we all know, Biblical Truth is secondary to winning a debate...

 

would God be commiting a murder IF He knew that he would raise the person back to life?

Did God know how Abraham would answer before He asked him, so a teast of faith?

Does God use lies as Rahab purposed to do, in order for the greater good, IE saving the isrealites and getting them the promised land?

Can God EVEN Murder?

 

Give us an example.

 

That would not be a lie. For all his boasting, John would know that usage determines meaning, and when the Scriptures speak of lying, they are describing something that is for malicious or otherwise unfaithful or unjust purposes.

They are not describing the acts of Rahab or the Egyptian midwives.

 

Would that fall under God permitting a sin in order to avoid a larger sin, that greater good would result from it?

 

I stand corrected.......I would "mis-direct"

 

:thumbs: True. Thanks for the discussion.

 

If God commands us to do something, then that is His will and must be obeyed--whether we understand it or not. Of course, God had no intention of Abraham killing his son. It was merely a test, but Abraham had no idea that it was. He trusted God's promise and believed that even if he did kill his son, God would raise Isaac back up. How many of us have that kind of faith? I know I don't.