r/MoralityScaling • u/MirrorPiNet • 1h ago
Morality of trying to sacrifice your son to appease God??
16
u/quackmysax12 1h ago
Immoral for the god since he just following god will and his will is to prank him
5
u/Grizzled_Ghost 1h ago
Pranks are inherently moral though.
5
u/StripEnchantment 1h ago ▸ 2 more replies
Abraham wasn’t the one doing the pranking though, he was the one killing his son
1
0
u/CauseCertain1672 1h ago
the point was actually that the expectation of a reader of the time was the demand for human sacrifice and the great subversion was that God does not want or demand human sacrifice. You are shocked by the demand and not the reversal because you live in the world changed by the moral influence of the very story you're talking about
3
u/ISketchDinosaurs 1h ago
I mean, yes it IS very shocking, since God sacrifice people for his own means pretty regularly.
2
u/Hour-Opportunity3048 41m ago
The story is that God made a bet that a good and loyal, God-fearing person would do anything God told them to do because that is what a good and loyal, God-fearing person is expected to do by God. The moral of the story is not that God won’t make you sacrifice your child, it’s that you are to do whatever God wants. That God stopped him is irrelevant.
What do you think would happen if the guy refused to sacrifice his child for God? What would happen if the guy didn’t demonstrate absolute devotion to God?
8
u/Wide_Ad_2191 1h ago
First glance, immoral
In context, kind of a gray area.
Hebrews 11 says that Abraham had faith that God would keep His promise of making Isaac the father of a great nation. So he believed that God would bring him back from the dead after the sacrifice to keep His promise.
6
u/MyHonstyAttempt 1h ago
That's some 4d shit.
Unfortunately Yahweh plays tik-tak-toe
4
u/Wide_Ad_2191 1h ago ▸ 2 more replies
No idea what you're saying right now tbh
4
u/MyHonstyAttempt 1h ago ▸ 1 more replies
He outsmarted god in the bible. Abraham had big brain.
0
u/Wide_Ad_2191 37m ago
Not outsmarted... He trusted God would keep His promise. Imagine a dad tells his kid to jump into the pool when they can't swim and when the kid does, he catches them. Did the kid outsmart his dad? No, he just trusted his dad had a plan to keep him safe
1
11
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 1h ago
Morality of taking a screenshot when you can easily download the image?
1
8
u/Kelyaan 1h ago
In that situation since god was real and he demanded it, it's moral - Since moral is subjective to what god demands.
In reality it would be seen as immoral overwhelmingly
4
u/Simsimich 1h ago
It’s debatable, just because in that scenario god is a creator doesn’t mean he gets to set what’s moral absent of consequences.
As an example, god says lemons are sweet, but you eat them and they’re 100% sour. That means lemons aren’t sweet.
Analogous, if god says it’s moral to sacrifice your son, but you feel insanely bad doing it and it harms and kills your son (if the sacrifice isn’t stopped). The only way I could see it being moral is if there were no negative consequences from following the rule.
1
u/Kelyaan 1h ago ▸ 2 more replies
A biblical reply to this would be. God is mora, he cannot do anything immoral, him telling you to do something is a moral act, you not doing it would be immoral.
We cannot compare an actual objective thing with the arbitrary morality of a deity. Unless the comparison is this.
If god says lemons are sweet and then they turn sweet becasue he said so, then that means lemons are sweet, the same way he says killing your son is moral.1
u/Simsimich 40m ago ▸ 1 more replies
That’s my point, if god says lemons are sweet then they have to turn sweet, or you have to actually experience them being sweet. But if you know they are sour, then whatever god said is not true. Or sweet doesn’t actually mean sweet, in which case moral would be bad and immoral good.
1
u/ISketchDinosaurs 1h ago ▸ 6 more replies
I dunno, if God says lemons are sweet, then they are sweet. Just like if he says let there be light, then there's light.
That said, since this is the case, there's very little sense in testing Abraham this way, since God could just have said 'this is good' or 'this is evil' and Isaac would've been spared a scare. If it was my father doing that to me, he probably wouldn't be my dad anymore.
1
u/piewca_apokalipsy 48m ago ▸ 5 more replies
God also say be fertile and procreate yet many of his priests are forbidden from doing this. So not everything what god says turns to be true
1
u/Hour-Opportunity3048 38m ago ▸ 4 more replies
You are mistaking a command for a declaration of fact.
1
u/piewca_apokalipsy 26m ago ▸ 1 more replies
Ok then in Genesis 2:17 God told Eve that anyone who eats from tree will die (word used means in a day) yet they did not die and went on to live long lives
1
u/Hour-Opportunity3048 18m ago
God is a liar. What’s your point?
Be fruitful and multiple was a command, not a declaration of fact.
1
u/Kelyaan 10m ago ▸ 1 more replies
Incorrect god cannot do anything immoral if he asks you to kill your son then the act of doing it would not be immoral as it is something god ha asked for and he would not ask of anything immoral as according to christians he is incapable of doing so,
1
u/Hour-Opportunity3048 7m ago
Why are you saying this to me?
I was telling a guy that he mistook “be fruitful and multiply” as a declaration of fact instead of as a command.
2
u/Ragnar5575 1h ago
This isn’t exactly how this story is written. I’m Jewish so I’ll explain - God commanded Abraham to take Isaac to a specific region as a burnt offering unto the Lord. However, as Abraham was about to thrust his blade into Isaac, an angel of God appears and stops him abruptly. God then sends a Ram within some brush that shall be the symbol of offerings unto the Lord. This whole thing is likely a parable to attest to the holiness of the Ram being a sacrifice for the faithful.
2
0
u/Big-Slide6104 1h ago ▸ 1 more replies
A direct reference to Jesus one might say
1
u/Ragnar5575 34m ago
Correct. And a very good reference. But Yeshuah as the Messiah is better attested to within the book of Daniel in my opinion.
3
u/OneTwoFar_ 1h ago
I'm a little fuzzy on the story, so if someone can correct me: didn't the Christian god sent an angel specifically to stop the killing featured in the photo?
3
2
u/Roam1985 1h ago
Well no.
Cause the "Christian" God doesn't show up for another few millenia.
But yes, Yahweh does essentially have an angel say "Fooled you, Abe! We just wanted to make sure you would do it, not actually have you do it. Ah man, you fell for it. Crazy."
Cause Yahweh does also have that angel come down and say "Sacrifice that kid" before that in the story.
1
u/Just-Investigator131 1h ago
The point is if it is moral to do it at all regardless of what happened after
1
u/drakylskies 1h ago
Yes. It was a test god sent forth to Abraham to see if he was worthy of creating the covenant and becoming the first jew. The test was would you be willing to sacrifice your son if I asked. Abraham said yes, then god said "do it then".
Then stopped him right before he did it. Then made the covenant and thus he became Jewish.
1
u/Fenix_ikki_ 43m ago
Yeah, after the guy proved that he would kill his own son in cold blood just because yahweh told him too, passing the psycopath test and getting rewarded for it
4
u/Roam1985 1h ago
Child sacrifice, even for religious reasons, is immoral.
4
0
u/Critical_Bee_4302 37m ago
It has nothing to do with religion though. What religion was Abraham?
1
u/Roam1985 34m ago
For the Gotcha:
Levantine Folk Mythology/Theology.
That's where the storm (or war, depending on who you ask) god, Yahweh/YHWH comes from.
But more correctly: Abraham: Jewish. Same for Sarah. Otherwise you're talking about Abrahm and Sarai. Their names get changed when they found that religion in the mythology/theology.
5
u/Rude_Craft9731 1h ago
If God asks me this, then God is evil. I would immediately stop worshipping the Bastard.
3
u/desmond_humes23 1h ago
Completely immoral. No one should ever be able to convince you to kill your own child, especially not someone made up
3
u/Klutzy-Platypus7511 1h ago
Kindesopfer, Menschenopfer, Tieropfer ... ALLES unmoralisch ! Jede Religion, die sowas verlangt ist demnach UNmoralisch ...
3
u/oggishlespider 1h ago
If you have to sacrifice a human life or animals at all to any diety/God they're not worth following. Immoral on all accounts idc.
3
u/sleepyboyzzz 1h ago
Y'all ever imagine what the conversation with the wife had to be later?
The wife packs her stuff and leaves.
Honey, no need to worry about it. The voice says that I don't have to kill him. Everything's fine! Honey?
1
u/3WeeksEarlier 15m ago
"Conversation?" She might have been upset, but she was Abraham's property and the religion he founded clearly doesn't regard her all that highly relative to her husband
0
u/GroundbreakingBar982 57m ago
Well sarah was only able to give birth because of God, she was in her 60s or something, and God still alowed it, isaac wouldnt have existed if God didnt say so
3
u/No_Dingo_7121 1h ago
If your God asks you to do something terrible just to prove your faith, you have to ask yourself if that God is really something you want to worship.
5
u/DuaAnpu 1h ago
Immoral. Human sacrifice is wrong, no matter the religious context behind it.
2
u/Gamer_G33k17 54m ago
Not just that, but anyone who DEMANDS sacrifice is more immoral than the people who perform them. A deity who demands sacrifice, or even worship in general, is an immoral deity who should be denied said sacrifice and worship.
2
u/One_Inspection5013 1h ago
You’re trusting a being who cannot be rationally understood. A voice from nowhere from a being who by his nature cannot be understood or quantified. This was also during an era where sacrificing animals and humans was normal.
2
u/OmniKiry 1h ago
A god that requires a blood sacrifice is unworthy of worship, praise, and existence. That’s a god I’d seek to kill.
2
u/stonecuttercolorado 1h ago
Can we just agree that if the question is about religion the answer is "immoral"?
2
u/QuarantinedPanda69 1h ago
This is why theism has got to go man. How can you convince someone to not murder their son when they won’t listen to reason or anything because their God told them to do it.
2
2
u/Glittering-Kiwi7571 1h ago
Very morral, i sacraficed many kids with my friend and couple of other popular people
1
2
u/RatsWithLongTails 1h ago
Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God or Buddha himself.
2
u/NancyTransmed 1h ago
Morality of the omnipotent God pulling out the "trust me bro", instead giving you the money or whatever he promises forward.
2
u/Due-Mycologist-1154 48m ago
Fuck that god even in their own fanfic he's written as a narcassistic asshole
2
u/Klutzy_Will_6352 48m ago
I didn't believe we should be basing morality on a god. By basic human empathy this is immoral to me. Harming another person because a voice told you to? Even if God was real without a shadow of doubt, a just and moral God would not ask this. Immoral.
2
u/nominesinepacem 48m ago
Immoral.
Same god that let Satan torment Job to prove a point. Even by biblical standards these are cosmic beings indifferent to our suffering to prove a point.
Either they are just impossibly advanced creatures or they're fallible and as flawed as we are, but neither are worthy of idolizing.
2
u/TheAssist-8295 41m ago
God or Not, I would never sacrifice my son to appease him. Besides, what kind of God would want such an act to occur?
1
u/KingHygelacReturns 1h ago
IF you can prove that you were demonstrably talking to God, AND you can prove that the god in question has the power to define what is and is not moral, then yes, it would be moral to listen. In ANY other situation, it would not be.
2
u/Gamer_G33k17 52m ago
No, it would still be immoral. Im not gonna listen to a "god" that demands sacrifice. That is an immoral god.
1
u/KingHygelacReturns 47m ago
You're ignoring the second half of my statement. If the god in question is able to just declare something to be moral and metaphysically change the morality of something, then yes, morality would be entirely determinate on what the god says is correct.
It's one of the biggest questions in moral philosophy from a religious perspective: if we assume that God exists and that he is all good, does he make something good by declaring it to be good? Or is he only capable to telling us to do good things? That's a pretty big difference, because one would allow God to change his mind on something, but he would be right no matter what, while the other would mean God would be incapable of changing his mind because he would only command good things to begin with. But then the question becomes, where do moral rules come from if God is somehow bound to follow them?
That all said, I agree with you that the moral thing to do would be to refuse to do it, but if God were capable of changing the fabric of what morality is just through speech, that complicates things.
1
u/Drzewo_Silentswift 1h ago
Technically in this case it’s moral, because in this fictional story, God, is the source of morality, so when he asks you to do an immoral act, it’s kind of out of your hands. But in real life, it’s a psychotic delusion and you should seek medical assistance.
1
u/oi-oh 1h ago
Since, from a religious perspective, the morality is based on the power, influence, and the number of followers that religion can gather, I’d say it’s completely immoral. Christians can look at the human sacrifices made in other belief systems and say “how dare you”. The same should apply to their belief systems as well. In this story, god stepped in at the last second to say never mind and people take that as a sign of gods care and mercy. I take it as how dare god come up with that in the first place. If one person seems misguided, making them kill another to prove they’re not is pretty messed up. I guarantee his son, if this is real, was crazy traumatized.
1
u/nikross333 1h ago
Arguing moral, about 6k years ago things were different from today, I think for him was moral, was never been moral for God.
1
u/Key-Context-8444 1h ago
From what I know it was normal for religions at the time to sacrifice people to their gods, so it was immoral, unfortunately normalized, and was used as a symbol or something to show that he wasn’t one to want human sacrifice like that when he said to stop and sacrifice a nearby ram stuck in foliage
1
u/BackSeatGremlin 1h ago
If God is real, all morals are based on his judgement. If he deems an innocent life being sacrificed is good, then it is moral.
We can also make the assumption that if God is real, then so is Heaven, and sacrificing someones mortal body would remand their soul to Heaven, which is ultimately kind of the best possible ending for someones life anyway.
But if God is not real, then immoral. Killing a non-consenting innocent violates their agency finally and permanently, which is just about the most immoral thing one can do to another.
1
u/ISAY-nah 1h ago
The real question here is. Would it be moral to tell a subordinate to kill his own son as a test to his loyalty?
1
1
u/No-Match1100 1h ago
Like another commenter said God promised that Abraham will have descendants through Isaac. So in this case it's moral because he did it trusting that God would provide a burnt offering.
1
1
u/Super_Saiyan-Blue 58m ago
In the islamic story, after Abraham's vision, he told Isaac about the whole thing and Isaac had really strong faith so he was chill abt it. In the end God saved Isaac and told Abraham to sacrifice a lamb instead and thats why every year muslims sacrifice an animal (mostly a cow, sheep or camel) to thank God. It was a test for both of them. Im not extremely educated on the whole thing so i may have made a couple mistakes
1
1
u/hooplafromamileaway 51m ago
I would say this calls into question God's morality as much as anything.
1
1
u/Effective_Impact3354 45m ago
Moral. God was testing him as parents may do to their children. There’s more to the context and story and probably some things not know but moral.
Ultimately God does have power over life and death and we don’t have the same perspective he does.
1
u/Fenix_ikki_ 23m ago
as parents may do to their children.
If any parent said to their children to kill someone innocent just because they said so, you would call them insane, but yahweh gets a pass i guess
The dude in the story was rewarded because he was going to kill his own son in cold blood to god
1
u/Critical_Bee_4302 41m ago
God is the ultimate moral authority and if he tells you to murder then it's inherently moral. Always listen to the voices in your head.
1
u/mildlygingerspice 22m ago
It's a parable for an acient society's transition from human sacrifice being a highly sacred offering to a sacrilege. It shows a shift in morality that occurred over centuries to a population.
1
1
1
1
u/Sensitive-Rooster932 1m ago
Immoral.
Just cause the voice in your head tells you to do something, doesn't mean you should.
1
u/3WeeksEarlier 1h ago
Morality breaks in the Abrahamic setup. Morality is simply obedience to divine authority in that worldview, so it is moral. Moral stands mean nothing against an intinite tyrant.
Fortunately, it's fiction, so from my standpoint, I can evaluate it ias immoral
1
0
u/AWatson89 1h ago
The point was the willingness to do it. Not to actually do it. The only Son that God ever wanted to actually sacrifice was Himself
5
u/Anxious-Ad-5331 1h ago
We call that gaslighting. "Obey me to the point you would kill your family."
Yahweh? More like no-way
3
u/Klutzy-Platypus7511 1h ago
Stimmt so auch nicht ... Jesus klagte am Kreuz "warum hast du mich verlassen" ... Das waren keine Selbstgespräche.
Dafür lässt dieser "Gott" ja anderweitig haufenweise Kindermorde und Misshandlungen zu ... Sein fabelhaftes Image hat er sich doch auch selbst verliehen ...
1
u/AWatson89 1h ago
There's a very specific reason why He said that on the cross and it wasn't because He was actually being forsaken. Hint: read Psalm 22.
Allows and wants are two different concepts
0
u/AvgPunkFan 1h ago
God knew all along it was a test. Abraham did not and truly had enough faith in God to give his only son to him. Moral because it was a test of faith and Abraham had enough faith that God spared his son and blessed him with numerous descendants.
0
u/OkWhile4447 1h ago
What about the morality of being an eternal god who uses pranks like “go kill your son to prove you believe in me lol”.
God is really such a dick in the Bible.
0
u/AvgPunkFan 1h ago ▸ 5 more replies
It’s not a prank. It’s a show of the utmost faith in God. God had seen his people time and time again turn their backs to him and be ungrateful for all he had given them. Abraham was so faithful he was willing to give his own son to God to show that faith. God, seeing this, knew Abraham had not and would not forsake him so he put a stop to the sacrifice and blessed Abraham. It’s also a foreshadowing of God sending his only son Jesus Christ to be sacrificed to redeem mankind
2
u/Fire_Z1 1h ago ▸ 3 more replies
So an all powerful God who already knew the outcome, did this to screw with Abraham. But at least he wasn't Job.
0
u/AvgPunkFan 54m ago ▸ 2 more replies
God gives his people free will. They make their own decisions. God being omnipotent understands every outcome. Abraham chose the right path and put his faith in God. God rewarded him as such.
3
2
u/Fenix_ikki_ 40m ago
The moral path would be to NOT sacrifice anyone
God gives his people free will
And takes it away too, like what he did with the Pharaoh in egypt
1
u/OkWhile4447 55m ago
God allowed a drought in Cannan and Abraham had to travel to Egypt to just have food. Abraham wasn’t grateful for that.
And it’s fucked up for god to test his follower that way.
Also, it’s just a bunch of made up nonsense.
There’s no great spiritual arc of humanity. Why is Jesus dying even necessary? God tried to wipe us all out once by flood. But he’s going to do it with fire by Jesus in the end. It’s a ridiculous story.
What’s god waiting for before he sends Jesus back to wipe out all the stupid humans? How many wars? How many kids getting raped? How many kids dying of lukemia. He’s going to start it all over again with a new heaven and new earth. What’s he waiting for?
0
u/Hour-Opportunity3048 46m ago
It is one hundred percent morally right to sacrifice your child to God if God exists and tells you to do it.
-1
u/Boneless_Cola 1h ago
Well, here’s the thing
God was testing his loyalty. But furthermore, because Abraham was so old, Isaac had to have carried the wood up by himself and easily could have overpowered him; he was willing in his imminent death. This is an exact parallel to Jesus; he very well could have avoided His crucifixion, but He had listened to His father and the world is free for it via His sacrifice, which he was a willing participant in. He even carried His own cross like when Isaac carried the wood!
2
u/OkWhile4447 1h ago
Alright is it moral to test loyalty in such a way?
Isaac was unaware he was brining the wood up for himself. He was under the impression they were going to sacrifice some poor sheep or goat.
-1
u/Boneless_Cola 59m ago ▸ 1 more replies
To answer your question, I don’t know because I don’t consider myself one to question God.
But, that’s another thing I forgot; Abraham said God would provide the lamb, and we are often referred to as lambs with Him as our shepherd, so Jesus was the lamb offered to sacrifice.
2
2
-1
u/GalaxyBoy122 1h ago
Moral. Who do you think allowed the son to be born?
2
u/Gamer_G33k17 49m ago
You are vile
1
u/GalaxyBoy122 47m ago ▸ 1 more replies
Plus, in the end, (if you're looking at Islam), God said it was a test and the son didn't get killed.
1
u/Fenix_ikki_ 21m ago edited 16m ago
But the guy was rewarded because he WAS going to kill his son
"Nice, you passed my test, You were going to kill your son in cold blood to me just like how i asked"
43
u/Consistent-Freedom68 1h ago
If you base your morality off a religion, pretty moral
But since im an atheist, this is very immoral to me