Someone did a great (short) video on the subject -

And is also sounds like you've made up your mind about alot of people before anything has started.

Maybe you should explain what your real intentions here are.

or a no?

The intention is nothing more than a hypothetical moral dilemma.

It's the same problem faced in the bible, now presented to believers.

So, given that choice by god, what do you do?

Are you asking how I would choose if I were Abraham? That's a bit different than asking how I would choose if I were myself. There are significant theological differences in the two periods that would come to bear on the question.

Again, maybe you shoulld be a bit more specific about exactly what question you are asking, or maybe you should tell us what you are really looking for.

If my explanation seems to change the question for you, just use the question in the op.

Currently, it is of the nature of "can he make a rock so heavy he can't move it" variety.

Admittedly, we've already determined you're not really interested in a discussion, but your hypothetical isn't clear because of the mixed basis of the question. Are you asking, hypothetically, about Abraham, or the modern era?

I'm assuming that due to that evasiveness, your answer would be yes.

I'm not being "evasive". As in another part of this thread, I can't answer without understanding the question. Suddenly it is about people poisoning children they believe to be witches. That's a far cry from what Abraham was asked to do. It is hard to answer without understanding exactly what is being asked. It is becoming increasingly clear not everyone even is asking the same question.

far too much into it, its a GENERAL hypothetical, and applies to all these scenarios. This tells me that you continue to evade because you know the answer you would make.

I don't know the answer to "how fast do you want your pigs to fly".

Right now, that's about how the question sounds.

It's a simple question, really.

The way he posed the question suggested some reference to the story of Abraham, which is a distinctly different context than that in which I live. God does not speak to me the way he spoke to Abraham. Theogically, amongst some believers, God doesn't speak to ANYONE the way he spoke to Abraham. The framing of your question is along the line of "can god make a rock he can't move". A silly question that doesn't even make sense. How is god going to tell me to kill "my children"?

You might as well ask me how fast I want my pigs to fly.

Have a nice day.

What part was too hard for you to understand?

You have attempted to make the very simple question in the OP unnecessarily complicated. You offer nothing but excuses as to why you are unable to answer such a simple question, most shockingly that you "don't understand it."


Whatever, man. Answer it or don't, but offering up several posts of obfuscation tells the reader more about your approach to this than any answer to the simple question ever would.

It's been a civil exchange. Lets end it here (unless you want to answer the question in the OP, of course)

Have a nice day.

The question is more complicated that the OP understands. It is that lack of understanding that makes it difficult to answer. It was confused by the attempt to clarify which only amplified the confusion. It is critical to know what period of time the question is being asked, and also who is being asked. To suggest that the vast majority of believers today would presume that God would speak to them the way he spoke to Abraham is wrong. To them, the question is as absurd as the "can he make a rock to heavy to lift" question. If the question is "Could you be Abraham", that is a significantly different question, and not one I suspect the OP was asking. Roughly speaking, it is as absurd as asking "could you be Adam" or "would you have eaten the apple". None the less, it is a different question. It would probably be vastly less absurd to ask something like "Could you be Jobe". Quite honestly, the more serious question is whether they'd been different than Peter prior to the rooster crowing. This is a significantly more important question as well since it is one that many people will face multiple times in their life, one way or another.

But whatever man, if no one wants to explain what they're asking, I don't have to worry about answering.

I value the lives of human beings.

My real intentions are to illustrate that most religious people are more moral than the god they worship, but apparently its too difficult for people to value the lives of even their own children before gods. That is disturbing.

So you've closed your mind to discussion.

Don't be surprised when no one tries then.

By the way, you've illustrated nothing, other than your own lack of understanding on the subject.

You've prejudged the answers, and admitted you aren't interested in a discussion. Exactly where is the opportunity for enlightenment in there?

efforts they lack the degree of Abraham's faith. For people of faith, Abraham is the epitome of faith, an ideal to strive for.

This is what is so fucked up about faith, I simply can't imagine the mindset.

Is that really an ideal to strive for, particularly in this day and age? I was hoping for at least ONE religious person simply saying no, but apparently that's too much for them. Why is it so fucking hard to value human life? Why? I'm truly trying to wrap my mind around this, and this is one of the biggest reasons why I really have a problem trusting or getting close to religious people, I view them as an ever present danger to my and my loved ones well being. I value them more than they value themselves, its sickening and disturbing.

ON EDIT: In addition, Oedipus was a character in a Greek Tragedy, what does that tell you about the symbolism of it? He was not portrayed as someone people should emulate, and the themes of the play were things such as "you can't fight fate, attempting to do so will only bring it about", things like that, common dramatic elements that we still see today in movies, literature, and theater.

please don't say,"but, God did it." The belief is that God is sovereign, and can do as He pleases.

However,your qualification itself is an equivocation when referring to the "Abrahamic faiths" as a distinct group.

I could easily ask you if you would kill a person of faith to support an agenda of organized atheism, as did indeed happened in the 20th century. "No equivocations or excuses, any such attempts are basically another way of saying yes."

'I wouldn't do it because, in my mind, God would never tell me to do that'.


So, I'm guessing that Christians really DON'T believe the dogma they spout and pick and choose to follow what they like and not follow what they don't.

is your attitude, AND against any sense of fairness. I responded in complete honesty and openness, in my opinion. Now if you wish to continue positing such equivocations to "people of the Abrahamic faiths, but for some reason feel that positing the same type of question to atheists and non-believers is not acceptable, then I must question your rationality.

Sorry, humblebum. You gave your "honest answer" and then moved on to your stock flamebait.

was an honest reply making that point quite clear. Call it what you will, your attempt to evade my point is quite obvious.

Surely you cannot limit God's options. He may need/want your offspring to die to create some great good. Would you refuse him? Why? The idea that you can know the complete mind and intent of God is an absurdity - same as anyone else. Whether you think he would ask this is as irrelevant as Abraham thinking so. Clearly if he is sovereign, his sovereignty extends both to your obedience and your child's sacrifice does it not.

EDIT - sorry - to answer your question: No unless in self defense. That's not an equivocation. It's a condition. I want no part in a pogrom against believers, but would fight to avert an attempted theocratic takeover of a (even slightly, as now) secular state.

If I'm reading it right it could easily be paraphrased as "I would not obey God if he ordered something I personally would not expect from God".

I'll say directly that that is a valid answer and even a laudable answer from a believer. It does however conflict with your own comments about God's sovereignty and unlimited options though. By giving that answer you are limiting his sovereignty and options where you and your children are concerned.

if he is sovereign then he can do anything he pleases including telling someone to kill a child. Though we believe God is sovereign, we also believe that his covenants are unbreakable by him. When he said thou shalt not kill (as in murder), it was written in stone - pun not intended. Therefore, he has commanded us not to kill. For Him to go back on that commandment, and the commandments being covenants, though he has the power to do so, we believe that he does not act contrary to his word.

1. You would NOT kill your child if asked to by god... because it's against god's character? Well if he's asking you to do it... then it's not anymore is it?

2. God can do as he pleases - so what does it matter what his "character" is, he'll do what he wants and you will, as you have stated defy him if it conflicts with your own moral code.

3. Asking anyone on this thread if they "would kill a person of faith to support an agenda of organized atheism" is not the same. To equate the two is folly and here's why. Atheism does not have a supreme being who's words we advicate MUST BE OBEYED AT ALL COSTS. Nowhere do we have dogma mandating the actions of atheists, and any number of people that might want to call themselves (or more likely be called by YOU) "organized atheism" is no authority that we recognize, swear fealty to, pray to, to feel any obligation towards.

The two questions become fundamentally:

Q - Would you (as a devoted follower of the god of the bible, such as Abraham was) kill your child if ordered to directly by God (not something we made up, but an integral story in the very book that your religion claims to be a guide to morals, conduct, spirituallity, and sometimes history and society)

as opposed to

Q - Would you (a person who happens to have a disbelief in dieties) kill a person of faith to support an agenda of organized atheism(apparently other random people who don't happen to believe in dieties, who got together and want to kill the faithful).

The difference in saying "no" would be the difference in saying:

A - No, though I claim true faith and exalt "historical figures" like Abe, I'm not like him and I would tell God (whom I swear to and pray to and live my life in accordance with, and feel a SUPREME obligation towards) to get bent.

as opposed to

A - No, I don't go around killing people, and a group of people who share one thing in common with me, to whom I owe no obligation, asking me to do so does not change that.

You really see no difference though do you?

I tried to actually engage you in intellectual discourse, but you have proven yourself far beneath it.

I had wondered why most of the people that bother to reply to you just laugh in your face.

I wonder no longer. I have no doubt whatsoever that you've earned it from each and every one of them in time, as you have earned it from me now. I won't bother to put you on ignore, for the entertainment value you might yet provide, but I certainly waste no more keystrokes than to laugh at your antics.

no, I do not agree with your assessment. However, I do find contradictions in your statements.

When you said that "Atheism does not have a supreme being who's words we advicate MUST BE OBEYED AT ALL COSTS," I never claimed it did. But, historically there was a time when that, in fact, it did happen - with no voice from God, but from an authority just the same.

I think I have pretty much explained my position. If you care to dissect it, that is your prerogative.

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I would only kill a person in an emergency.

For example: I get the muncies, and I don't feel like driving to the store, and the Ramen noodles in my cupboard are not looking very appetizing, and someone weaker than me is at my house, and they look kind of yummy...

This question, like so many of the "gotcha" posts, is based on the fundamentalist interpretation of both the Bible and theology. Why so many of the non-religious here want to push all theists back a few hundred years to a notion of Biblical stories that both Jewish and Christian scholars reject is curious. Perhaps it is the only way they can make their arguments. If they just dealt with what contemporary Biblical criticism says they would not be simply reflecting the fundamentalists perspective.(who are still around in great numbers) But obvious it is easier to squash a notion of religion that is outlandish, than it is to dialogue with a rational approach to both Biblical and theological inquiry.

As in a rational approach to assumed premises?
As in a rational approach to empty speculation?

Post or link anything that is rational about any supernatural claim in any religion.

Thanks in advance.

you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe a god talks to you, you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe that the story of Abraham and Isaac is a good moral story.

All you have to be is a believer who believes in a personal god that intervenes in human affairs and has a way to communicate with you. This would cover damn near every religious believer of the 3 major monotheistic religions and believers of quite a few polytheistic religions as well.

I'm not talking about, necessarily, voices in the head or avatar manifestations.

That's the conflict in your question. Many, MANY believers, for theological reasons, don't believe that God would communicate with them in the manner he did with Abraham.

and many doesn't include all.

I didn't realize the point of your question, or the answers, was to stop people from killing their children.

Again, I can't really figure out what you are trying to ask here? Are you searching for some "Jim Jones" kind of attitude or something?

and do not believe that this story is literal. Which is fine.
I hope you also understand that your view of modern Theology, which you get from your Academic background, is out of sinc with most Christians, who do believ much of the Bible is literally true. (Not everything word for word, but reflects what really happened.)
But many, maybe the majority of believers, think this story is very real. Therefore to ask if they would follow God if he asked them ti kill their children, as Abraham was willing to do, is legitimate.

I have not encountered a congregation in a long time--granted my limited scope--that does not engage in serious thoughtful discussion about Biblical interpretation and theological inquiry. One of my books on the subject has been widely used in congregations--and there are a hundred other good study guides that are widely used. as well as film series, journals and a library of books. You obviously don't know about any of this because you may not want to know. It would inhibit your argument. Have you really never heard about the "Jesus Seminar" or the collection of churchmen and women who form a substantial body of progressive thought and action?


What bothers me is that many of you just don't want to admit that this goes on. You would rather castigate all those places where it does not--and there are plenty of them. If you really see that serious critical inquiry is happening all over the place--not just in the academy, my guess is you would have more trouble shooting down all religion. Shooting at a wounded decrepit target is easier that picking on something that is robust, growing and has rational integrity.

And you must admit they make up a significant portion of followers.
But even with your more progressive interpretation (and yes I have heard of the Jesus Seminar) we still have an argument with your belief in a divine Jesus. And the belief in a supernatural God.
What's more we have a problem with what major religions want to force on us, as evident in the current bullshit about contraceptives and the Catholic Church. Though it is not limited to them. There is a movement pushed by the Republicans and supported by a great many Churches to institutionalize discrimination in the guise of "religious freedom". All based on their reading of the Bible.
So just because you hold liberal ideas, doesn't mean we don't see the damage religion is doing.

Most of my life has been spent in an attempt to open up the church to fresh ways to think and act about life's basic issues. If you think I take it on the chops here, you have no idea what I have taken from the religious right-wing particularly as that bunch has gotten aligned with the political right-wing.

Why in this group should those of us in the progressive religious world be lumped in with those things that we all find to be distortions? Why is is that so many of you cannot and will not argue with what we say instead of retreating to a notion of religion that we don't hold? I go back over my postings and the responses and almost without exception people want to take a shot at concepts I don't hold. and what I do hold is just ignored. While it is better, there are still three ore four out there I will not respond to. It is useless for me and for them. A closed antagonistic mind is exactly that, and I have no time for that sort of slammed-shut persona.

Religion has a negative role to play for sure. But it also has a positive role and we need colleagues who may not agree with us but who know that we all need one another, particularly in light of the coming election.

while I assume you and I stand together on most political and social issues, we don't agree on the basic premise at the heart of religion (i.e. the concept of a God).
I get you don't hold many of those harmful beliefs, but part of the discussion is asking you to accept that maybe that is an inevitable part of religion and just because your concept of Jesus and God are more refined, we still have to deal with the large segment of the population that does want to enact their brand of religion on the rest of us.
This is the place to discuss that. There are many other forums to discuss the upcoming election.Which, BTW I see religion taking a very nasty part in. that includes the entirety of the Republican Part and the Catholic Church.

a place where we react to the religious ideas we post. But if it, as some choose to use it, is just verse two of the atheist's group and not as a place to discuss what religious ideas are posted, it ceases to be a productive avenue to search out what is new and exciting about "religion" which is the assigned topic. I could probably spend full time lambasting old worn out ideas of science or history or politics that many people still hold but are not the wave of the future but the wave of the past. Where would that get any of us? If may do something for my ego, but it would hardly move the discussion ahead. Especially if nobody here had offered those old ideas. If I am talking to scientists i would rather be helped to think through what is best modern science is telling us, instead of focusing on what junk most highly-opinionated non-scientists believe.

I have many conversations with non-believers, but we hear each other, respect each other and never try to savage each other, just try to hear and understand even if we are far apart. That's what I call rational dialogue.. I have always longed for it here.

And by the way as a Christian I hold that what i believe has a great deal to do with issues around the coming election.

if someone is scientifically minded and discussing science they welcome a challenge to any of their ideas. If their ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, they have to rethink them. There are no sacrosanct areas in science.

a dialogue between people of different opinion who respect each other, who really want to hear and understand what the other says, and who see possible areas of agreement--or at least realize their common objectives. :AND smarthy put downs by those unwilling to discuss, just to slam and to ask "gotcha" questions. You would be surprised at the legitimate discussions that go on over these differences--but here on "religion" many not only wouldn't recognize them but would sneer at the very possibility.

Scrutiny in intelligent conversation demands that people at least try and understand each other, and hear what the other says, and have a basic respect, without agreement for the other's perspective. In those arena I have been challenged and have in fact altered what I believe.

If you think there are no sacrosanct areas in science, you have not been in on many multi-discipline scientific conversations.

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

and I have never had anyone say. "This is just my belief for which I have no evidence and I would like you to just accept it."
I see that here often.

The "gotcha" questions come down to this from an atheist stand point. How can you believe in something for which there is clearly no evidence?

Which God you believe in is not material when we dismiss the existence of and god.

Speaking for myself though, when I attack a particular egregious act or utterance from some religious individual or group, I am not attacking all religious people.

I have a thought on Theology vs Philosophy which I will create a thread for.

Feel free to respond.

There is meaning to life.

All history moves towards some refined goal--call it evolution--or the lure of the beyond.

There is built into every act, encounter, "actual occasion" the energy which makes that occasion possible.

"Faith hope and love" are the bases for every civilization and human relationship.

The world is full of possibilities caused by whatever lures us beyond the ordinary.

I believe that my life has a purpose and I have been called to that purpose by what cannot be defined, but which continually asks of me the question, "what is of value?"

I hold that existence is more than "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I love and am loved. Since there is no scientific evidenced for that I suppose you might say it doesn't exist. Indeed the most important things in life supply none of the things you might call evidence. But don't tell me that they therefore just don't exist or have no meaning. Perhaps your definition of evidence is far too small.

Or for sure, your predetermined definition of the God that doesn't exist is far too small. Maybe God is that which gives meaning to everything else, and the energy that makes everything else possible.

some entity or conscious energy or however you define the God you believe in for my life to have purpose. I am quite able to provide the meaning and value of my life for myself without reaching out to a power for which there is no evidence.
My "narrow" definition" concept of God is whatever supernatural force believers claim without any proof, and for which there is plenty of counter evidence.
If your concept of God is only the natural laws of the Universe which organize existence and for which there is no conscientiousness or action or input. Why call it God?

The Aristotelian Good Life is available without an outside force.

but that has nothing to do with their existence. The energy within everything is not just a physical presence, but the source of meaning which moves all that is.

That is the largest obstacle.

How would god convince me he was god and not me going nuts?

This is a much more likely scenario and goes on every day.

I made plans to go to Canada.

Even though millions of people ARE willing to kill if the government says so.

and other atrocities against children, most done at their parent's hands occur due to religious belief, every day?

Which is a bit different that people justifying their decision based upon religious justifications after the fact.

Your original question was about being instructed by God. Children dying at their parents hand "every day" isn't a case of people being instructed by God. Truth is, the vast majority don't even believe they were in direct communication with God. At best they feel their instructions were in keeping with historical directions from God. At worst, directions given by others with God-like authority.

its from their god and supported in their holy texts.

I'm curious who all these child killers you are referring to. There is a large theological subset which would dispute that in todays day and age, God wouldn't do such a thing and anyone hearing/seeing/believing such an order was being guided by anything but God. If the OP is looking for some Jones adherents to respond, he's probably in the wrong place. Otherwise, it isn't clear to whom he is aiming his question.

considering most of the people there were forced to drink the flavoraid laced with poison at gunpoint.

But I digress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html

Granted, this article is three years old, but gives some recent statistics.

In addition watch this if you have the stomach for it.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/return-to-africas-witch-children/

Oh, and before you think this is limited to Africa, there are more recent news items from the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/accusations-witchcraft-pattern-child-abuse?newsfeed=true

These people aren't claiming to be acting on the orders of God. They are claiming to be acting ON BEHALF of God. This isn't Abraham being asked to slaughter his own child. This is people believing that the child to be killed is evil and must be killed. At best they believe they are acting in the best tradition of God.

Would I give my child chemo therapy knowing it could kill him? I might given the right set of circumstances. But when he died, I wouldn't claim that "God told me to". I might say my faith in God lead me to believe I was making the right choice on behalf of my child.

That's what I mean about the original post. It isn't clear exactly what is intended here. Will I poison a child believing it is possessed? NO. But that is different from what Abraham was asked to do.

For one, not having chemotherapy means they die anyways, with it they have a chance to live, and professionals and years of research went into this to give us the best treatment options available. This is concrete, this is real, and its far and away a hell of a lot different from killing your kids, overtly or through neglect, due to your beliefs in fantasy and myth.

Your examples of exerocism of sort have little to nothing to do with Abraham at all.

If it doesn't follow the exact narrative of the story of Abraham and Isaac, it doesn't count? What type of bullshit is that?

Is he asking about an Abraham kind of situation, or something else? It matters to the answer for many. The OP wasn't clear about this whole "god told me to" thing. Since people have specific beliefs about how, when, and what God will speak to them, it's kinda important to know what they heck he means by "God told you to". When he threw in the "Abrahamic faith" schitck, it left more confusion about what he meant. It only got worse in one of his subsequent posts.

Now we have folks talking about infantcide in conjuction with exorcisms, which isn't really about "God telling them to" at all but merely human reactions to what they percieve to be "evil spirits".

also I probably should have used Monotheistic religions instead of Abrahamic, but I meant that as but one example, not an exclusive example.

It could be signs from your god, or a belief that your children are possessed by devils, demons, or spirits. There are parents who are in prison due to religious belief motivating them to kill or attempt to kill their children.

Each of those might have a different answer. I can't think of any "credible" situation in which I would accept that God is asking me to murder my children. That's a slightly different answer than the quetion asked. For one thing, I can't (and am not particularly interested in trying) to imagine all the different horrific situations parents over the years have found themselves. "Sophies Choice" comes to mind. Parents on some Japanese islands were reported to have killed themselves and their children out of abject fear of how their childrens lives would play out if the Americans captured them. They thought a "merciful" death was preferable to the horrible death that was to come to them. And of course there are parents that are going to choose to "let" a child die that is suffering from something uncurable condition. Could they find a reason to hasten death?

I don't really want to consider alot of those scenarios. And the vast majority have precious little to do with "God telling them to". For the sick child, I'm sure that there are those parents that believe that God "gave them permission" to let the child "go to heaven".

As I say, I can't imagine something outside of those contexts in which God is asking me to kill my children so I can't say what my response would be. Heck, I don't want to imagine IN those contexts.

As you may or may not know I'm in the AF.

Though I've been fortunate enough to never have to kill anyone directly, I hold no illusions as to what my work does, where it goes and exactly who it kills. I'm an accessory to 12 years of war by now and the body count may stagger me if I really researched it. The fact is though I sign the contract again every few years and I know exactly what it says, if they DO give me a gun and they do say "shoot those guys coming our way." I shoot them.

Needless to say (I hope), there's a line to be drawn, I would never personally fire on anyone that was unarmed, etc, etc, regardless of the consequences to me. I WILL disobey any unlawful orders, and I know my Law of Armed Conflict very well.

It's a straight question and I gave a straight answer. Why is that so hard for the theists here? Why all the excuses? "This is a gotcha, this is close-minded, there's no point, this isn't fair."

I could deflect this question with the same kind of nonsense excuses or I could just answer it.

The difference is, your question is based in REALITY. As you said yourself a much more likely scenario, but one based on cold hard truths. I'm a pacifist at heart and it pains me, more than you know that our country/world, conducts business the way that it does. I simply can't trust the next person / country to play nice even if we do. It's all about fear and we humans are deathly afraid of each other and what we might do.

How I wish it were not so, how I wish we really did have a benevolent creator that would actually talk to his children and they would listen, but the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding gets pretty nasty tasting sometimes. So here I am, knowing that wish-thinking will get us nowhere, and sadly enough I DO have to distrust the next guy and I MAY have to kill people, it's not a perfect situation, but if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion, this thread, why the very word "religion" would be superfluous, faith unnecessary, and the answer to the OP... obvious.

to have a military chaplain. I was recruited by the Chief of Chaplains of the AF who could not staff these places with the personnel he had. I heard your story over and over. While military training teaches how to kill, in the bases where I serve most of the guys felt saved from the dilemma because they were loosing bombs at 20,000 feet. These were men( and at that time a very few women) who would defoliate large areas trying not to realize what was happening to all those whose lives depended upon those trees.

Never in my work with the AF did I try to inflict my ethic on those to whom I was sent. My role was to hear their stories and let them know that someone was there just to listen. In the rest of my life while not being quite an absolute pacifist I have been clear that what I hold about violence flows from what I know about Jesus. That connection is solid with me. Religion has everything to do with what I hold in the rest of life. How do we make the world a place more fit for life? it is my fundamental question,

but as I've stated many times before, my continued assertion is that efforts to improve the world, not only CAN be secular, but in my opinion, should be.

Either way we've diverged from the main topic, and as stated in my post, I don't see the problem with the question, and I think if people answered it truthfully, it might spark discussions regarding thier answers, but as it is, the majority of the thread revolves around why theist posters will NOT answer the question.

I think your long and thoughtful response highlights the major issue I have with this post, though.

"This is a simple yes or no question, a simple choice, obey god, or not.

No equivocations or excuses, any such attempts are basically another way of saying yes."

It's not a simple yes or no question or a simple choice, even when it comes to obeying orders in the military, as you point out.

Then the question can be altered slightly, but it's a good question IMO.

It's a bit different, I don't credit the US Air Force with my creation, or the creation of the universe. I don't assign it powers over my "immortal soul" to condemn it as they see fit. I owe only the obligations that I have sworn and the oath specifically states that I will obey the LAWFUL orders of the president and those appointed over me. In other words I know exactly where to draw the line in my case but I think we Atheists are rather curious as to where the faithful draw the line or if they even do. Moreover I personally wonder if some theist have even asked themsevles this sort of question and if so, have they been honest with themselves in answering?

How about this (and I can't speak for Human_Activist) as to whether or not this would satisfy his/her criteria, but if the question was changed...

Q - If contacted by your God directly, as is depicted many times in the Bible, to many individuals, would you make the same choices? Would you obey regardless of the order, were the order to kill, even a loved one? Would you, dro everything in your life to build an Ark? Where would you draw the line?

It's like the moral/ethical dilemma about whether you would kill an otherwise innocent individual if their death would save many more.

There are just too many variables to give a simple answer.

FWIW, I don't credit any god or gods with my creation, or the creation of the universe. I don't assign any god or gods powers over my "immortal soul" to condemn it as they see fit. I don't think any god or gods are going to contact me directly or give me any such order.

I could see how this question (as you post it) might be posed to a fundamentalist, but it is so far from anything I can imagine, that I can't answer it.

That is probably very similar to the reaction you might have if I posed it to you.

The more I hear about your belief system the more nebulous and holistic it seems, but that's not to sound mean about anything I just really have no idea where your beliefs begin and end.

If the question were posted to me?

I'd freak out I guess. I do not believe in the god of the bible and I wouldn't want to find out I'm wrong, largely because I've come to dislike the god of Abraham for a great many reasons and it would be (for me) much like waking up to find that Rush Limbaugh had just been appointed emporer of the world. The reaction would be the same to both scenarios, I'd commit myself, and spend the rest of my days on sedatives, asking wallpaper how it feels about the whole situation.

in a state of evolution.

I do feel pretty certain that we are not the top of the food chain, I'm just not at all sure what that means.

This is how I was raised: No one told me what to believe, but there was an emphasis on believing something and following those beliefs. A lot of my personal beliefs come from Christianity, because that is what I was most exposed to. But a lot of others come from different religions, philosophies, my professional education/training and personal experiences.

Some of them work for me, and if they prove to be faulty, I try to recognize that and adapt.

I guess I am one of the growing group of "nones" - given a black or white choice, I would say I am religious, but not affiliated with any religion.

Your last paragraph is truly funny and I appreciate your take on this.

what the God Mammon of debt based growth economy and consumerism is ordering, to foul up the carrying capacity of the ecosystem we belong to.

So, when will we stop killing our children as ordered by our god Mammon? When will you?

No equivocations or excuses, any such attempts are basically another way of saying you won't stop killing our children.

I don't take the story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac literally.

I think it's an after-the-fact story to "explain" why the Jews, unlike many of their neighbors, didn't practice human sacrifice.

(The story of Jephthah is an exception, but it's more a matter of him making a dumb promise and feeling obligated to keep it rather than God telling him to make a sacrifice. If you don't recall the story, he's out on a military campaign, and he prays for victory, saying that if God grants him victory, he'll sacrifice the first creature he meets as he approaches his home. Well, that turns out to be his daughter. Oops.)

Sounds like equivocating or being deliberately obtuse. In addition, you didn't answer the question, so I'm assuming the answer is yes.

telling me to sacrifice a child--well, I'd hope that someone had noticed my mental illness beforehand and sent me in for treatment before it got to that point.

It is only a reflection on yourself, and an incredibly lame attempt to manipulate an argument.

If you recall, Abraham wasn't praised for not sacrificing his son, but for being willing to do it on God's say-so.
Similarly, Jephthah is praised in the New Testament. Had the point of the Jephthah story been about not making foolish promises, then why is he remembered in the New Testament not as that idiot who killed his daughter, but as an example of the greatness of faith?

Starting with the Jewish tradition and continuing through until the nineteenth century fundamentalists, theologians read and taught Biblical stories on many levels, not only as literal truth but as parables, as allegories, and as starting points for discussions of issues.

I wish we had a rabbi or other person well-versed in traditional interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures to talk about these stories.

I suppose that one of the other levels of the Abraham story is to say that sometimes you may have to be willing to give up something you treasure in order to follow a higher calling, not literally killing your child, but perhaps a relationship or material possessions.

I don't recall Jephthah being mentioned in the New Testament, though. In any case, he's not a big deal.

Be willing to sacrifice for a higher calling. Why the Jews don't practice human sacrifice. There's often a way out of a sticky situation.

There's no one right answer in this form of discussion unless you're a fundamentalist.

That's why Christian theologians have been discussing these stories for 2,000 years and Jewish scholars for even longer.

The lesson of neither the Abraham nor Jephthah narratives is about human sacrifice being wrong. Both stories use the murder of one's child as an illustrative point about the virtue of boundless faith in God.

Jewish law and tradition condemned people who sacrificed their children (which was a custom among some of their Canaanite neighbors).

So what's your point?

In the Judges period and later, anyone who sacrificed their child would be considered an apostate, and in Christian times, either evil or mad.

In real life, not in ancient stories.

"Both stories use the murder of one's child as an illustrative point about the virtue of boundless faith in God."

Yes, an illustrative point stated in an exaggerated way. Not a prescription.

But if you choose not to understand that, there's nothing more that I can say.

I'd holler back up at the sky for God to go fuck itself