One day I awaked suddenly hearing a voice that repeated the words"kill, kill, kill.... I am who I am the god of abraham, the only true god. I am testing your obedience to me and only me not Randal's or apologists' that think that what I command can be shunned with BS. Fortunately I was not in the mood to kill. But who knows....

Every creation according to Bible is created by GOD including DOG. If you hate the DOG , GOD will hate you.

Thank goodness god didnt ask the israelites to kill the egyptian firstborn................

The people I know who adopt universalism end up also embracing Ecumenism. Which makes the point that one heresy is always attached to other heresies.

I don't think John Piper can read. "it's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases" even though in Genesis 8 God said "never again will I curse the ground because of human beings, since the desires of the heart are evil from youth; nor will I ever again strike down every living being as I have done". One cannot understand the Caananite slaughter without genesis 8 as the canvas on which to paint this story, as it does not work..

Randall begins with a modern. liberal. humanistic assumption: these are "war crimes." So, Randall argues - typically - that even if the Canaanite society was evil, the children were not. Why should they be eliminated? Well, this was judgment on a society, just as the bombing of German cities was a judgment on a society. It was not judgment on individuals. And it was a demonstration of God's judgment of evil. Society means everyone. Randall then uses the old argument that the culture was not as bad as these scholars made it out to be. It was only literature, after all. Now, I'm a literature guy, and my observation is that literature both reflects the culture and normalizes the moral extremes described in the literary texts - or music. Literature is not neutral. It can encourage goodness ort evil. In Canaan it reinforced evil. Not only is American culture equally culpable we exceed the extremes of immorality of the Canaanites. We murder our millions of our children; we approve of all manner of sexual immorality and celebrate it in song and film. We allow every kind of violence without taking adequate action to suppress it. We worship the gods of wealth and independence from restraint. We do all this while allowing many to suffer poverty and hunger. The powerful become more powerful, and the least of our population suffers. We very well may suffer destruction as the Canaanites did. That seems irrational to Randall. But God did it at least twice with regard to his chosen people Israel. When it comes to evil, God does not discriminate.

There was a time your child was not yours. There was also a time where neither you belonged to your parents. In actuality, you neither belong to yourself.

I want to say that Mr. Rauser is operating on some bad assumptions, here. The first, no, God is not defined as being perfectly morally good or being the embodiment of moral goodness. It is entirely consistent to be able to discuss God as the figure of worship in Abrahamic faiths, as the character in the Bible, as the one who incarnated as Jesus without that assumption. Part of what this question challenges is that divine command/divine nature morality to begin with. Secondly, no, I wouldn't even on that assumption. Doing good things is not something I do in order to be in alignment with objective moral goodness. I do them because of my values. If objective moral goodness was "sacrifice a baby to an omnipotent being that can, by definition, achieve whatever good it wishes to achieve without that sacrifice", then I now know that objective morality disagrees with my values, specifically valuing people over the label of "good". But most wrong of all is the basic premise of that defense. I said that divine command/divine nature morality is part of what's being challenged. Another part is the moral superiority of Christianity, in example that it keeps us farther from killing people who aren't threatening us with any harm. Well, not only does that not really stack up well with history*, but this question puts the screws to that. You can't defend the notion that Christians are morally better than other people... by claiming that other people aren't better. Are you trying to claim to merely be my equal in distance from doing bad things and closeness to doing good things? If so, you have failed. But in so doing, you have also abandoned the claim of being my superior in those regards that has long been a large part of Christian belief. *We can argue the exact number of pogroms committed before Christianity loses out on that making-people-less-murdery claim, but I would argue that said number has been surpassed.

I really like your stuff but this just seems like 10 minutes of avoiding the question. Especially when we can point to verses where God does command the killing of children

So many Christians tell me yes they would obey God in killing their children or other children

It seems incredibly obviously to me that a Christian should obey god. You have belief in him despite the genocides of Amalekites and Cananites, right? So how could another infant smashed on the rocks possibly be of amy consequence? 7:41 "we don't believe that this is possible" gives up the game. It presumes your understanding of god and morality is greater than God's, and that his morality must conform to your intuitions. "The divine? It's conveniently what I believe! What luck!"

the christians not only gaslight a person ,but also put a smoke screen ,they are toxic ,and their cross should be turned into a sex toy including the saturn planet placed infront,so they can really say than o jesus my saviour

For those who dont know what it said, it said apparently" Heres to my sweet satan, the ones whose little path who can make me sad whose power is satan."

How would this work out? Whats the scenario? Do you here a voice in your head commanding you to kill your own child? If so, you are a mental person. A psycho. Christian or not christian. You should be locked up inside an asylum.

Thanks for these discussions.

In his 1989 book, “The Highest Altar,” Patrick Tierney suggests that the binding narrative handed down to us is a sanitized version. In the original story, Abraham went through with the killing.

"Christian" is a euphemism for the notion that might makes right. "Nationalism" is a buzzword for white Europeans only.

Calvin was a grotesque person. And neo-Calvinism masquerading as "Christian Nationalism" in the US is a terrible place to live. They REFUSE to live in a plural society, one where people necessarily live closer, work closer to people with different lifestyles and points of view. I have to continually remind myself that these are the DEATH THROES of a dying religion, one that structurally can't adapt and will ultimately die out - just like other maladaptive belief systems before it.

The same kind of counterpossible question can be asked of any moral theory. If sacrificing your child maximised utility, was what ideal observers would agree to in hypothetical contracting scenarios, displayed virtue and lead to flourishing lives - should JS Mill, John Rawls and Aristotle sacrifice their children? Depends on your view about modal metaphysics and counterpossible reasoning (extremely controversial and highly speculative area of philosophy). Either way, it’s no problem for any of the views, including the divine command theorist. But whether God did in fact command child sacrifice is a matter of biblical interpretation, not philosophical theology

Listening to Vody Bochem is a reminder that American conservatism since at least the early 20th century has been a political chauvinism that sets itself as an opposition to communism, non Christian religions and the economic competition of other nations. It's that simple. It's "America First" - meaning 'only America' rhetoric that is deeply authoritarian and supremacist in its nature. How he equates 'globalism' with Chinese economic dominance is very telling - though at least he doesn't use the often more common antisemitic definition. Vody wants America to dominate the world (while remaining isolationist), and doesn't want other powers doing it. In other words - this is about money coming into America and none going out. But that's the only 'foreign' thing he wants coming in. He definitely doesn't want any 'foreign' ideas coming in - though I'm guessing he'd be very happy to see a McDonalds on every street in every foreign country.

Rauser’s position seems incoherent. Jesus, the supposedly perfect man, believed in the stories from the Tanakh and upheld the Law. The Law includes human sacrifice, or at least did in theory while the Temple stood. The very doctrine of Atonement is an approval of redemptive blood sacrifice, a fundamentally horrible and unjust idea. Jesus also approved the cruel Temple sacrifice of animals. He wasn’t at all the nice examplar of modern progressivism Rauser seems to imagine.

When God commanded Saul to have the Israelites to kill the Amalekites men, women, children, infants and animals. God was mad when Saul didn’t follow his instruction fully indicating it wasn’t hyperbole. How did that work? Husbands and fathers had to go kill other people’s babies on orders from their commanding officers. Would you follow those clear orders?

I think your apologetics is too on the presuppy side. The skeptic asking the hypothetical is challenging the notion of moral perfection. I would just say "no" because that scenario would be new information that God is not in fact morally perfect.

No fear at all...that was a unique situation...and it was a test!

They are not Christians, they are MAGA Cultists. As Jesus said about them: They follow their father Satan, the father of lies (He's orange by the way) truth has never been in them.

I don't see a moral hazard with the story of Abraham and Isaac. God had promised to Abraham that through his seed, all the nations of the Earth would be blessed. Isaac was it. Abraham trusted God to raise Isaac from the dead. I think that's implied. He was acting in faith. But we can't be expected to have that same faith because we don't have the same promise. So, God can't ask us to do that. Because it would be evil to sacrifice our child with no hope of resurrection on this Earth. By definition, God can't ask us to do something evil because then he wouldn't be God. Asking the question is a self-defeating argument.

It's not just that it's impossible for God to be evil. It's that it's a contradiction that God is evil. If a spirit asked you to commit an evil act, like sacrifice your baby, then that would prove that spirit is not God, by definition of who God is. You might as well argue that water is always dry. It's absurd. It doesn't even make sense to say that God would tell you to commit an evil act.

I would personally challenge the command. And I would do so not in spite of the Biblical text but because of it. The underrated aspect of the OT which is recognized in Jewish theology is the tradition of dissent. Abraham dissents when God is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses dissents in the Golden Calf incident. Amos dissent when God presents him with his judgement. Jacob literally "wrestles" with God. It's in that tradition that I would challenge that command.

You can tell from the comments that fundies and atheists read the Bible the exact same way and they are just opposite sides of the same coin.

Randal, do you have kids? I bet that if the person asking you the question is one of your kids, your answer would be a categorical "God forgive me, but no." That's the answer my mother gave me when I asked her this question when I was 15. That is always the correct answer no matter who's asking.

I've listened to Natasha's interview multiple times and it always bothers me. The way she uses the term 'purely irreligious' is condescending as if to say that we progressive Christians are just a tiny step away from those who care nothing about religion or are adverse to it as the word implies. I am not one to shy away from the word "religious". It is a big part of who I am as a person of faith. I have devoted much time in the study of the Bible and theology and to prayer and living out my faith in God. As for being mainly negative in our view of scripture, as Kokul perceives, that is just not true. If we didn't see a wealth of wisdom and truth in the Bible and many positives in the Christian walk we would not identify as Christian. Cherry picking, questioning, and including our own moral sense are to be expected and part and parcel of the many, many, many denominations we have. In fact, I would say within every church or on every church pew you will find diverse interpretations and differences in belief. Thank you for speaking up for Progressive Christianity and making excellent points.

i'm no religionist. but i cringe when people argue against god on the basis of human standards of morality. the supposed god ain't human in any way and people who try to tag him using human standards is just playing into the hands of the religionists who then get to explain things to the poor ignorant atheists. stop playing the game, just call bullshit bullshit and move on.

Really, "would you kill your child if god told you to?" is the wrong question. If the definition of god is that he is a perfect being of pure goodness, the answer is presupposed in that definition that anything he would command one to do is good (or, in his perfect omniscience, he knows that whatever actual result occurs due to his asking this is inherently morally good). A couple better questions would be "how would one justify their conclusion that the command they are following comes from god?" and, more broadly, "how do I know that the god I am interacting with is truly a perfect being of pure goodness?" and "is god good because it is god (as in, is any action god takes inherently good regardless of any amount of human suffering it might cause), or is god god because it is good (as in, god's perfection stems from its adherence to moral goodness)?" There's no good apologetic response to the broader points here. If you believe god is a moral agent acting within the bounds of a universal morality, you either have to argue that humans have an incorrect understanding of this universal morality and therefore our moral intuitions and reasoning are useless, or you have to spend the rest of your life defending the obvious moral inconsistencies in the bible. If you believe god is goodness itself, that any act it performs is good because god was the entity that performed it, there's no further discussion to be had, as this is an axiomatic position that can't be argued for or against. No moral reasoning or biblical examples can transcend the idea that an omniscient, omnipotent, purely good entity would automatically be doing a good thing even if he decided to sentence every soul in heaven to eternal suffering beyond human comprehension. To the specific point about determining whether the command was, in fact, from god, you would really have no way to prove whether or not the command you received was really from god. A human being only experiences reality through their cognitive faculties and their physical senses, both of which are vulnerable to being mislead by mental illness. It would ultimately come down to a question of "do I feel like god would order me to do this thing?", which is a perception no more likely to be correct than it is to be incorrect. After all, history is filled with examples of abominable undertakings by people who claimed to be receiving instruction from god. You can argue that all of these people were lying and using god to justify their action, but it's highly likely that at least some of these people were convinced beyond rational explanation that they were truly doing god's will.

Only at 9 months amiright?

In the Quran God did not ask Abraham to sacrifice his son. Likely Abraham saw what pagan people were doing until he dreamt about it, he thought God would also like him to sacrifice. The answer was No. God does not ask to commit sins.

Women off their spawn in impressive numbers. The only thing more impressive is the stupidity of their excuses… and the men who are gullible enough to legitimize them with something like this. Are you a shrink or something?

"My children, Michael and Alex, are with our Heavenly Father now, and I know that they will never be hurt again. As a mom, that means more than words could ever say. . . My children deserve to have the best, and now they will. . . I have put my total faith in God, and he will take care of me." [Susan Smith, who drowned her two children, in her confession letter, Nov. 1994]

She looked at him like he was stupid in that interview

Hebrews 11 17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. If Abraham believed that God would keep His promise then he would have no issue with sacrificing Isaac, because Isaac would not have been dead for very long according to what Abraham believed. So if God told someone that even if they killed their child that child would come back to life, then what's the issue? Who wouldn't do it? Abraham never once believed that killing Isaac would be the end of Isaac

There is now no reason for God to command anyone to offer a human sacrifice to God. Even animals are no longer sacrificed to God. Sacrifices ended with the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. So the question is moot.

It is not Genesis 22 that bothers me in particular. Rather it is the whole of Genesis that should bother everyone. God killing everyone because his children can't keep their thingy in their pants when it came to human women (Gen 6:1-4), God letting Noah become the father of slavery by enslaving his grandson's lineage because of a sexual act portrayed by Noah and his son (Gen 9:20-25). Speaking of that sex act of between Noah and Ham and enslaving Canaan as a result of that. Genesis has a way in which Israel's enemies are a product of sexual deviant behavior. This is a sure sign of bigotry representing all kinds of problems with morality of God. We have God, watching how Onan having sex with Tamar and when Onan spilled the seamen on the ground God zapped him dead (Deut 38:8-10). Talk about sex life. What is more is that God desires this levirate marriage to be codified in his laws (Deut 25:5-10). We have the story of Lot and his daughters how he gave them to the city to do as the men pleased (Gen 19:8) and with that in the NT Lot was appointed as a righteous dude (2 Peter 2:4-10).

Simply the atheist or whom ever asks this question is presupossing God intended Abraham to follow through and that God could not have raised Issac if he so chose to allow Abraham to follow through.. and if you are truly athiest then this is also on its face a nonsincical question lol. Its a simple attempt to test the personal believers moral view its the same kinda trap question as the pharisees attempted vs Christ.

*Yahweh inspired and rewarded Jephthah to sacrifice* Jephthah was not only an upstanding Yahwist, but was *inspired by Yahweh* to effectively offer a human sacrifice. Nobody corrected him. Yahweh didn’t respond to Jephthah’s pledge, “No, we don’t accept child sacrifices.” Jephthah Judges 11:29-12:3 _Then _*_the spirit of Yahweh came on Jephthah_*_ …. And Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh : “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house … will be Yahweh’s, and I will sacrifice it as a _*_burnt offering_*_ {‘ō·lāh}._ It doesn’t say that the spirit left Jephthah between v:29 and :30. The simplest interpretation is that *Yahweh arranged this sacrifice to himself* In 11:34, the author indicates astonishment that his daughter is the first to come out. _(If Jephthah is an idiot, so is the author.)_ In 11:39, *Jephthah fulfills his olah vow.* Judges 12:3 confirms that *Yahweh honored the sacrifice.* This is a Yahweh-approved, even Yahweh-initiated, human sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:32-33 Jephthah is included among those who conquered via faith.)

The answer is “No.” For the utilitarian, “the greater number will somehow have to struggle by with a less than greatest good.”

*Torturing Children for Fun Biblically* Psalm 137:9 “Blessed/happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”

Let's put the question back into its historical context. It was common in Canaanite culture to sacrifice children - usually babies - by fire to the Canaanite gods. The Canaanites didn't seem to have any qualms. So, the moral culture was accepted the practice. Abraham was still learning about God. He did not have the commandments. He came from a culture that morally was not at all like ours. There was, of course, the natural human resistance to killing your child, but there was for everyone. The culture overrode that natural morality just as it is doing in our culture today with regard to abortion. We seem to have no qualms with killing our children and we defend the right of mothers and fathers to do that. So, with that historical background, the answer is yes. Even though it was wrong to sacrifice your child, I in Abraham's place, would not have known better. And that is, in fact, the message of the episode. God is teaching Abraham a lesson: he is not the one who requires human sacrifice. He provides a substitute.

I would respond but you don't want a dialog. You just want to vomit out all the regurgitated thoughts that other's have co.e up with for the past thousands of years and pretend they're your own and never been answering

I note in the torture example you qualified torture by saying torture for fun. A number of Americans in Iraq it appears thought torture was fine. In fact one official in the Bush administration wrote a memo justifying torture as being legitimate. I should note that i do not want to be anti-American here. The French saw torture as just fine during the Algerian War as fine as well.

Are you kidding me no evidence for any gods, the problem in the world and has been for a long time is religion. Most religions are a negative. There’s no evidence for God, but there is evidence man has created gods. God in fact all the gods have been created by man..

Randall how can you call this hypothetical impossible when god repeatedly, clearly, plainly commands people to unalive children in the Bible? And they do it and he’s pleased.