Abraham's Attempt To Kill His Son Was Morally Justified

"These statements have no relation to one another. Yes, God promised that he would allow Abraham to father a child. And he got that. Isaac was born, and lived with him for a few years. In no way would his death break God's promise."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!"The only evidence you provide for this is that God says so? On what basis does this prove he never lies? How can we be certain that his claim to truthfulness isn't, itself, a lie? All you have provided here is circular logic."No, it's not God saying he doesn't lie. It's Paul saying that God doesn't lie. 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 isn't circular logic. "Or perhaps he told them this because he was about to murder his own son. Honestly, what do you expect him to say? "Oh, hey, I'm going to go off and slaughter my first born now, brb"? Or course not. He probably told them that so he would not seems suspicious." 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. Until you can provide one example of Abraham being dishonest, your assumption bears no weight. "Then when he returned without his son, he would just make up a lie about how they had been attacked, and his son killed."That's just more baseless assertion and speculation. Abraham was an honest man. "And? Just because good things happened once, does not guarantee they will happen again. For instance, I could tell you "Go look under that rock, there's $50,000" and then turn around and say "Kill yourself". That does not in any way guarantee that killing yourself would bring about some form of goodness, and in fact, it would more likely than not result in something bad."This comparison cannot be made; you are not God, who never lies."Past deeds do not validate future goodness."I don't think 'validate' means what you think it means."Because the second request was to murder someone. It doesn't matter how much "good" God had brought him in the past, murder is still murder. Nothing validates murder. Not even God."Murder is defined as unlawful killing. What law was Abraham commanded to break?"And here is the problem. Just because something good would happen, does not make murder moral. I could go and murder a bank teller, and yeah, that would probably land me a fair amount of cash. Something good. But that has no bearing on whether or not that act of murder was moral."You could go and try to murder a bank teller, but that is different than doing it at the request of God; a trust-worthy God that had already promised you that the bank teller would live."In the same way, being rewarded for slaughtering your own son, with no justification other than "I was told to do it", sure, may bring you some kind of reward. But that has no logic bearing on whether or not what you did was moral."That's a strawman argument. Abraham was not rewarded for killing his son.