BadBadBad

Oh I see. God would never tell you to kill YOUR child. God clearly told people to kill children, their children and other children. This is just special pleading.


That's true regardless of what God told them isn't it? Should we interpret the Abraham story itself on the same basis, or do you have some more special pleading to do?

Do you presume to know whether God would speak to anyone? Do you presume to know what God would say or would not say? Do you presume to know how God would present that message? It's no doubt evidence of her insanity, either that or like you said earlier, it's clear evidence that she was demon possessed. You seem to have some doubt as to her insanity yourself. Assuming there is no God and assuming there are no supernatural and unseen forces invovled here, then yes there's no doubt. She must have been insane. Given the supernatural nature of God, it's just not that simple.

You're putting this in terms of a secular judicial system that has no room for the presumption of God. Evidence? I read there were numerous psychologists testifying to her insanity. Unfortunately, there will never be any evidence submitted by the defense in a secular courtroom that it was God. That's more or less what we're considering here. As I've pointed out, her insanity doesn't preclude her God claims being true. On the contrary, her God claims could very well have resulted in her insanity.

Your basis suffers from the fallacy of special pleading and as such is really no basis at all.


You have given fallacious reasons that in no way determine what God did or did not do.

ekis

I regard myself as a very much 'modern' Christian. For me, God is the alpha and omega, the summation of all there is. I have read all Conversations with God books by Neale Walsch and believe the messages there are purely for the benefit of all creation and hence for me, they are bonafide from God.

I do believe that the mother who killed her child was mentally ill. God is love. God will not command killing, for that contradicts God's very nature. I think that is the same line of reasoning the jury must have based their verdict.

The bible and all other claimed God-mediums must be read/heard between the lines. If a communication is attributed to be from God, it must be tested by examining whether the communication promotes purely goodwill and love. If it does, then the message is from God. If it does not, then it is from man (ego). My 2c.

Peace!

Jack the Bodiless

LP675:
...ahem:

brighid

It is possible, if we are to believe the evidence presented in the OT. Although I see no evidence that her God said anything to her. The explanation that has plenty of evidence is this woman is mentally ill and there is an organic defect in her brain causing her to hear voices. She probably views God through the mental indoctrination of her cultural upbrining. I am sure mentally ill Hindu men and women who kill their children in name of a God aren't hearing Jesus, and the same goes for Muslims, et al.

I don't think an all powerful God capable of creating anything would need to coerce someone into killing another. He would have the power to make the individual do his bidding without inducing psychosis ... but since there is no God ... she is just very, very mentally ill and in desperate need of intense and long term treatment. In a way I feel badly for her if she is ever cured because the knowledge she murdered her own children may be so overwhelming to render her treament mute. I know I would go insane from that knowledge.

Brighid

brighid

Perhaps you haven't read the OT lately! God sent a bear to maul a bunch of children for calling a man "baldy". God ordered the Israelites to rip the unborn from the wombs of those they conquered, and dash their infants upon stones. He ordered that all women who have "known a man" be killed and all the virgin females be taken as wives (and the marriage is consumated in rape after a one month period of mourning, prior to which she had her head shaved and her nails clipped) ... and on and on ...

Brighid

Nectaris

Not to turn this into a BC&H thread, however I have seen argument that in the E text, Abraham actually goes through with the sacrifice. I think Friedman suggests it in Who Wrote the Bible, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first to think of, or even write about, this. I think it is also pretty telling that Abraham didn't stop and say, "Hey God wouldn't want me to do such a thing, I must be insane." I may be reading too much into the text, but the idea that Abraham believed that it was indeed possible that God could demand the sacrifice of children may appear to support the notion that it is not inconceivable for such a thing to occur.

There is also an incident with Jepthah in Judges, Chapter 11 [That brettc originally brought up-I should really read earlier posts before opening my big mouth ]

Starts around verse 30

Although there is no command from God to kill his daughter her, there is a promise from a man to kill the first person who comes to his door after God delivers victory onto Jepthah. If God had a problem with the sacrifice of Jepthah's only daughter he could have prevented it.

I think that any argument about insanity and "God told me to do it," really falls apart in light of theistic rationalization for their God and its behavior. Any argument a theist could make could be contradicted by another theistic argument, e.g. God would never do such a thing v. God works in mysterious ways or God is working for a greater good that us humans can't comprehend.

I also think that the argument that "God has never done this in the past" would also be contradictory to the theistic notions of an all powerful God, in that they are creating artificial constraints on said God's power based on the concept of precendent. I think ultimately, for those who are deadset on the existence of theistic God, the defense to any crime or transgression of "God told me to do it" cannot be countered. Of course, for those who do not believe in gods of any stripe, it is pretty easy to reject

Dave

kciredor reprah

Some people claim to speak to their god on a daily bases, people who one would think were completely sane. I have a problem with this assertion. Especially when they tell me that if I tried hard enough that he would talk to me also. Why should I have to try to get something to talk to me. I figure if it really had something to say to me, it would just say it. I have yet to hear any voices in me head other than my own.

Peace

capsaicin67

What is to prevent "Satan" from posing as "God"? If he is the Father of Lies, tempts people to ruin them, tempted Jesus in the Garden, all that junk---then why did Abraham presume that what appeared to be a very harmful and inappropriate request came from "God" and not "Satan" trying to lead him astray?

That is to say, how are we supposed to know God's voice from Satan's? Is there is some supernatural law that makes this "offsides" or foul? That to me is the most obvious problem with the Abraham story: he doesn't shrug and say that it sounds sinful so the voice must be Satan's.

To me the only way that people could tell the voice of God from Satan is by exercising our own judgement about the quality of the conversation---that is to say that making me kill my kid is nuts and wrong so it must not come from a loving God. Does the Bible or God ever comment on how we are to tell the difference between God's voice/commands and Satan's?

Which leads us to reality. Even presuming that Abraham did exist historically, there is no doubt in my mind that he was just like everyone else that I've met that believes God talks to them---impaired in some way or just ignorant or both.

Incidentally, upon reflection, I'm not sure how I would distinguish between "insane" and "mentally ill". I think that maybe the term "mentally ill" suffices for the modern age. But I still stand by the notion that Guilty But Mentally Ill should not be allowed to water down the guilt, just perhaps indicate the necessity of some medical treatment in the course of serving their sentence.

Starboy

Why stop there? Why not consider it to be the voice of Zeus or Vishnu or _________. Do people who converse with god think that people that converse with Vishnu are crazy? I suppose if you were sane one of the first things you would do was wonder if conversing with god was crazy? That would be the tipoff if you were nuts or not. I guess that is because in general people who think they converse with god(s) are crazy. We have a lot of crazy people running around these days.

Starboy

Nectaris

If one posits that such entities exist, I don't think you could blame a person for not knowing the difference between Satan and God. Afterall both are more powerful than humans and it would be impossible for a human difference--sort of like blaming me for not being able to defeat a full tank division with my bare hands.

But if we are dealing with an omniscient entity who posesses knowledge that is beyond human comprehension, a human cannot be expected to know the actual truth in this matter. Imagine (and I hope I'm not invoking Godwin):

God: Mrs. Hitler I want you to kill your son.
Mrs. Hitler: I know a good God would not possibly command me to do this, you must be Satan.
Satan: You are right Mrs. Hitler, that being is evil, do not kill your child.
Mrs. Hitler (addressing Satan): Thank you, you a kind and loving God who doesn't require sacrifice. . .

I know its an over simplicification, but I think it makes a point.

Dave