Abraham's Attempt To Kill His Son Was Morally Justified

"Yes, they do have relation to another: God promised Abraham would father a child, but he also promised that Isaac would have 'descendants.' Isaac's death would break God's promise; he didn't have descendants yet when Abraham tried to sacrifice him, so if Isaac was actually killed, he couldn't have children!"Indeed, you are correct. As I stated, I misread this portion of your argument.However, it is still flawed.1) There is no reason to think that God may not lie.2) God may also have changed his mind. This has occurred several times in the Bible. Hell, according to the Bible, in this very situation, either God (1) lied to Abraham about wanting him to kill his son, or (2) changed his mind at the last second.Clearly God is either apt to changing his mind, or lying, so why should we trust what he says? You have given no reason. "No, it's not God saying he doesn't lie. It's Paul saying that God doesn't lie."Paul saying God doesn't lie, by citing God saying he doesn't lie.Ergo, the only justification is that "God said he won't lie." The only evidence is that "God says so"."This proves that God never lies because for the purposes of this debate, the Bible story is assumed true. This was a stipulation we made when this debate began."This is false. What you said was, quote, "For the purposes of this debate, the story happened as the Bible tells it." Ergo, the only thing we are assuming is that this event actually occurred. We did not agree that the entire Bible is true. You are either mistaken about your own posts, or you are intentionally lying. Neither one bodes well for you."This isn't circular logic." This is indeed circular logic. The logic is as follows:1) God does not lie.2) We know this, because he said he does not lie.3) Therefore, that was not a lie. Why?4) Because he said it was not a lie.It just goes in circles. You have not provided valid justification for why God 'never lies', or at the very least, did not lie in this situation."Perhaps, but you have not shown Abraham to be dishonest in any way in any situation in the entire Bible, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt."Why? On what grounds do we have to give him the benefit of the doubt? Simply because he hasn't lied in the past? Perhaps I would be willing to grant such a thing if the crime were minor, but we are discussing murder. If someone is going to murder someone, they are, most likely, going to lie about it. Regardless of their past."Until you can provide one example of Abraham being dishonest, your assumption bears no weight."My assumption bears weight on the grounds that murder is a serious crime, and one nearly anyone would lie about, if they intended to commit it, regardless of how "honest" of a person they were.Either way, whether he truly believed Isaac would come back or not, it does not matter. He fully intended to slaughter his son for his god. That's completely immoral. To kill someone simply upon the orders of a higher up, especially someone who trusts you so much and is so close to you, is horrible."That's just more baseless assertion and speculation. Abraham was an honest man."Again, not baseless, but also, either way, not relevant to the question at hand: Would the murder have been moral?No. It would not have been, regardless of whether or not Abraham knew his son would return eventually. Murder is murder, and attempted murder is attempted murder. Nothing justifies it. It is a near universally-considered wrong. Even by God's own law.Which brings me back to my point earlier, about either God being okay with lying, or changing his mind frequently, making him untrustworthy."This comparison cannot be made; you are not God, who never lies."God never promised anything good would come of it. Neither did I. The comparison is entirely accurate, because in both situations, the only reason you are assuming something good will follow, is because something good happened prior. You make an exception for 'God', but not for anyone else. There is no logical reason to."I don't think 'validate' means what you think it means." Validate: To make valid; substantiate; confirm[1] Yes, I entirely understand what validate means. Perhaps it is you who does not understand. Just because someone does something good in the past, does not guarantee they will do something good in the future. That is an assumption. Which is fine, if you admit it is an assumption. But you are claiming absolute knowledge. Knowledge that you cannot possibly have, because, as I put it, past deeds do not validate future goodness."Murder is defined as unlawful killing. What law was Abraham commanded to break?"The 6th Commandment actually. 'Thou shall not kill'....Except when God tells us to. Whoopsie. Guess God just forgot to tell Moses to write that part down, right?Once again, either (1) God lies, or (2) God changes his mind frequently."You could go and try to murder a bank teller, but that is different than doing it at the request of God"It is absolutely NO different. You are killing someone. Stealing their life away from them, against their will, and spreading much pain and misery to their immediate friends and family. You devalue society as a whole when you allow people to start killing one another, and all they have to say to get out of it is "durrrr...welp, gawd told mei ta du it." What a ridiculous assertion."a trust-worthy God that had already promised you that the bank teller would live."God never promised Isaac would live. God promised Isaac would father children. But once again, as we've seen God do, he could have either (1) lied, or (2) changed his mind.And in either case, it does not bode well for him, nor does it morally justify the slaughter of another human being."That's a strawman argument. Abraham was not rewarded for killing his son."It is not a strawman argument. You are claiming his attempted killing was morally justified, on the grounds that "god told him so." That must also mean you necessarily would have found it morally justifiable if he had indeed gone through with it and killed his son, at the request of his God. Therefore, you think the promise of reward is moral justification for killing people.But that is a horrifying perspective, because by that logic, the reward of not having to put up with your ridiculous arguments is enough of a moral reason for me to kill you, and be let off. Reward does not determine whether or not something is moral; And we should not be so quick to embrace something that causes so much pain and misery.So, no, Abraham's attempted murder of his son was NOT justifiable, and under any other circumstances, that child would have been considered subject to abuse. But suddenly it's not abuse when God does it? No. That is not okay. That is not moral. And throwing up God haphazardly to defend this atrocity is, itself, immoral behavior.I rest my case.Sources1. http://dictionary.reference.com...