When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[Ahab]

I repeat you had better be d*** sure you are right.

Or in other words, you had better be d*** sure the person who some people call a "Prophet" is wrong and not acting as a prophet/Prophet?

A prophet/Prophet is only a prophet/Prophet when he is speaking for God, because that's what a prophet/Prophet really is, otherwise that man is only speaking for himself and not speaking for God.

[wenglund]

If God hasn't set the boundaries of morality and immorality, of what use to us are the scriptures?

But, I do believe God has set the boundaries of morality and immorality, and he continues to reveal those boundries to us, in part, and to the extent that we are humbly able to recieve it, through the scriptures.

Turning the question back on you, what need have you for God and the scriptures when you view yourself in a superior position to dictate to God the boundries you have set for him and what is scripture?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

But, I do believe God has set the boundaries of morality and immorality, and he continues to reveal those boundries to us, in part, and to the extent that we are humbly able to recieve it, through the scriptures.

Turning the question back on you, what need have you for God and the scriptures when you view yourself in a superior position to dictate to God the boundries you have set for him and what is scripture?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe that God acts according to the boundaries already established in inspired scripture. You seem to be saying that He can exceed those boundaries. I'm not sure why you think that would be so.

Your second paragraph is a strawman - I have consistently said that I believe God's morality is superior to my own. You seem to hold God to a lower standard than you would hold yourself to.

[Jason]

Perhaps you could explain the difference to me, then. You seem to be saying that God is incapable of commanding anything that was immoral because, no matter what God commands, it becomes moral when He commands it, even if it is normally considered to be something decidedly immoral.

No, that is in fact pretty much the opposite of my position.

You also object to "morally-charged" terms. What does the term matter to you, if the morality isn't changed by changing the word?

I am not objecting to morally-charged terms as improper to use in any cicrumstance.

I am merely pointing out that when you use the term "murder" you are already juding the killing described as immoral, because "murder" means "immoral killing".

Saying "God cannot command murder" is effectively a tautology. Saying "God cannot command you to kill" is a different matter.

From the top, the basic paradox is:

1. God states that He will not command any immoral thing.

2. God has commanded in the past things that are immoral (commanding that the Israelites kill children on their way into Palestine, for instance).

I see at least three possibilities:

A. (1) is incorrect. God will in fact sometimes command immoral actions (elguanteloko seems to be arguing that this is at least a distinct possibility).

B. (2) is incorrect. God in fact never commanded those killings (your position).

C. Our moral judgement of the events in (2) is incorrect. They were in fact moral all along because the surrounding circumstances of those specific events justified those specific actions (my position).

So no, I'm not saying "anything God commands is moral simply because God commanded it." I am saying "God's judgement of what is and is not moral is superior to ours, so where there is a conflict between the two, God is the one who is correct."

I am saying that placing restrictions on what you will or won't do for God ("I will never kill a child at God's command," for instance) is effectively saying that your moral judgement is superior to His, and that this is wrong.

Now, saying something like "If God ever commands me to kill a child I will want to be really sure that it is God actually speaking, and I will at least ask Him for a reasonable explanation before I decide to act" is not quite the same thing as saying "I will never do it."

[semlogo]

So no, I'm not saying "anything God commands is moral simply because God commanded it." I am saying "God's judgement of what is and is not moral is superior to ours, so where there is a conflict between the two, God is the one who is correct."

I am saying that placing restrictions on what you will or won't do for God ("I will never kill a child at God's command," for instance) is effectively saying that your moral judgement is superior to His, and that this is wrong.

Now, saying something like "If God ever commands me to kill a child I will want to be really sure that it is God actually speaking, and I will at least ask Him for a reasonable explanation before I decide to act" is not quite the same thing as saying "I will never do it."

I've never claimed that my moral judgment is superior to God's. Please stop saying that, because I've never claimed it. I'm saying God is perfectly moral, and obeys His own laws. I'm saying that there is no valid reason to murder (yes, there's that word you find so troubling) innocent children and babies. If you can find a way to justify it, all I can say is that I cannot comprehend a point of view that could ever find a way to justify such an atrocity. It's troubling to think that this point of view is being defended by you and others.

I will say with absolute confidence that God never has and never will order anyone to kill a child. The God I know wouldn't do that, because He is righteous and infanticide is inherently evil. Anyone who has ever killed a child has acted outside of God's influence. Anyone who would be willing to commit that heinous crime any reason has no business walking around free, and should be shunned by anyone who has children.

I suspect, however, that neither you or anyone else here would actually be willing to go through with such an act, regardless of who you thought told you to do it. Most of us just aren't wired that way.

[Jason]

I've never claimed that my moral judgment is superior to God's. Please stop saying that, because I've never claimed it.

Not in so many words, but you have effectively claimed it.

I'm saying God is perfectly moral, and obeys His own laws. I'm saying that there is no valid reason to murder (yes, there's that word you find so troubling) innocent children and babies.

Granted - there is no valid reason to murder anyone, let alone innocent children or babies, because murder is inherently invalid.

However there may be a valid reason to kill children or babies.

Do you see the distinction?

I will say with absolute confidence that God never has and never will order anyone to kill a child. The God I know wouldn't do that, because He is righteous and infanticide is inherently evil. Anyone who has ever killed a child has acted outside of God's influence. Anyone who would be willing to commit that heinous crime any reason has no business walking around free, and should be shunned by anyone who has children.

I say that there is no way you can know that killing a child is an inherently evil act in all circumstances.

And I say that putting limits on what commandments you will accept from God is wrong, and represents a lack of trust in God's moral judgement.

I suspect, however, that neither you or anyone else here would actually be willing to go through with such an act, regardless of who you thought told you to do it. Most of us just aren't wired that way.

Possibly not. Unfortunately, it has been said that we will all be tested as Abraham was. What God asks us to do may not be killing a child, but it will be something we will be equally unwilling to do.

[Zeta-Flux]

A few questions/comments for a few posters:

semlogo: Earlier you said that it was useless to speculate about situations like the railway dad who had to choose between his son and the train. But isn't God faced with situations like that all the time? How can you say that we shouldn't try to understand situation like that while also maintaining that you understand how God would behave? [i also reject the notion that we normal humans are never faced with similar circumstances.]

wenglund: Two comments. First, I think you are misunderstanding something semlogo is trying to convey. Namely, the primacy of our conscience in making moral decisions. Sure, God is smarter and better at making moral decisions than we are. Sure you have a point that he seems to be missing. But, you really need to present the entire picture, which includes us mortals trying to make decisions according to what our conscience tells us.

Second, I think you may have crossed the line between explaining why you view a particular position as idolatry, and actually judging (and continuing to judge) someone as being idolatrous. You made your point. Do you believe that continuing in the manner you are is helping those you are communicating with to come to Christ? [You only have to answer that for yourself, of course.]

cinepro: I disagree with almost everyone here who tried to answer the original question, and also your take about how to confirm what a prophet says. To me, there is a *huge* different between disobeying and contradicting a prophet. It is right to disobey a prophet when God tells us to. There are many examples of this happening. For example, there are times when prophets test us to see if we will obey God or man [Joseph did this to many people, as did a prophet in the Old testament to another prophet who subsequently got eaten by a lion]. In my experience, there are even times when God tells us that what a leader says was wrong but we should still obey.

On the other hand, to publicly contradict a prophet or leader should only be done if you have been called of God to do that. And by implication, that means you are claiming God has called you to be a prophet over those you are instructing contrary to the other prophet. In other words, it is one thing to believe God commands you to do something else, and another to believe God wants you to instruct others to disobey along with you.

[semlogo]

Not in so many words, but you have effectively claimed it.

No, I haven't. If you feel I have, post of the quote of me "effectively" claiming it.

Granted - there is no valid reason to murder anyone, let alone innocent children or babies, because murder is inherently invalid.

However there may be a valid reason to kill children or babies.

Do you see the distinction?

No. The killing of the innocent is murder, by definition.

This is a great example of moral relativism, Jason.

I say that there is no way you can know that killing a child is an inherently evil act in all circumstances.

And I say that putting limits on what commandments you will accept from God is wrong, and represents a lack of trust in God's moral judgement.

Is child molestation evil in all cases? If so, how do you know?

[semlogo]

A few questions/comments for a few posters:

semlogo: Earlier you said that it was useless to speculate about situations like the railway dad who had to choose between his son and the train. But isn't God faced with situations like that all the time? How can you say that we shouldn't try to understand situation like that while also maintaining that you understand how God would behave? [i also reject the notion that we normal humans are never faced with similar circumstances.]

No, He isn't.

[ERayR]

Or in other words, you had better be d*** sure the person who some people call a "Prophet" is wrong and not acting as a prophet/Prophet?

A prophet/Prophet is only a prophet/Prophet when he is speaking for God, because that's what a prophet/Prophet really is, otherwise that man is only speaking for himself and not speaking for God.

Deleted

[wenglund]

I believe that God acts according to the boundaries already established in inspired scripture.

Are you speaking about the boundries he has set for his infinite and infallible self, or the boundries he has set for finite and fallible mankind given the level of their development?

And, who, in your mind, gets to decide which scriptures are "inspired" or not?

You seem to be saying that He can exceed those boundaries. I'm not sure why you think that would be so.

What I am saying is that I will let God decide whether he can exceed those perceived boundries or not. I think this way because, as previously explained, unlike you I don't believe we finite and fallible men are in a position to speak for or dictate to God.

Your second paragraph is a strawman - I have consistently said that I believe God's morality is superior to my own.

No, it isn't a straw man. It is an unavoidable conclusion logically drawn from what you have said. Out of one side of your mouth you may claim that God's morality is superior to your own, but out of the other side of your mouth you portend to decide for God what he can or cannot morally do, and this based on what you have decided for God is inspired scripture or not, thereby unavoidably positioning yourself as superior to God. Sorry, you can't consistently have it both ways.

You seem to hold God to a lower standard than you would hold yourself to.

Wrong. Unlike you, I, as a self-acknowledged mere mortal, do not presume to hold God to any standard. Rather, I humbly let him hold himself, and me, to his standard. And since his ways are by their very nature higher than our ways (at least that is what I believe, though you seem to believe the opposite) I am affraid you are unwittingly projecting with that last sentence from you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

No, I haven't. If you feel I have, post of the quote of me "effectively" claiming it.

All posts where you have said you would not follow God's commandment if He commanded you to kill are effective claims that your moral judgement is superior to God's. Starting with #46 on this thread, but especially post #56:

"I feel equally safe in saying I well never kill a child. Or harm a child in any way. It doesn't matter if God Himself comes down and face to face tells me to do it."

No. The killing of the innocent is murder, by definition.

Not in all circumstances. You have agreed that killing a fetus is under some circumstances not murder. Who is more innocent than a fetus?

This is a great example of moral relativism, Jason.

Apparently you do not understand what moral relativism is.

Is child molestation evil in all cases? If so, how do you know?

Yes, because, again, molestation is a morally-charged term, like murder and rape.

[semlogo]

Are you speaking about the boundries he has set for his infinite and infallible self, or the boundries he has set for finite and fallible mankind given the level of their development?

Where is this distinction made in the scriptures?

And, who, in your mind, gets to decide which scriptures are "inspired" or not?

Everyone must decide for themselves. But you can't reasonably accept them all as inspired, when the genocides of the Pentateuch contradict so much of the spirit of the NT and BoM.

What I am saying is that I will let God decide whether he can exceed those perceived boundries or not. I think this way because, as previously explained, unlike you I don't believe we finite and fallible men are in a position to speak for or dictate to God.

God has already spoken for himself.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

No, it isn't a straw man. It is an unavoidable conclusion logically drawn from what you have said. Out of one side of your mouth you may claim that God's morality is superior to your own, but out of the other side of your mouth you portend to decide for God what he can or cannot morally do, and this based on what you have decided for God is inspired scripture or not, thereby unavoidably positioning yourself as superior to God. Sorry, you can't consistently have it both ways.

I don't decide for God. God decided for Himself when he sent His son to teach His Father's will. Unless you think God is a hypocrite who is unwilling to practice what He preaches. Is that what you think? That the Man of Righteousness is a hypocrite? I don't think that.

Wrong. Unlike you, I, as a self-acknowledged mere mortal, do not presume to hold God to any standard. Rather, I humbly let him hold himself, and me, to his standard. And since his ways are by their very nature higher than our ways (at least that is what I believe, though you seem to believe the opposite) I am affraid you are unwittingly projecting with that last sentence from you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

God set the standard. If His ways are indeed higher than our ways, then I am correct. If His ways are lower than our ways, then you are correct. Take your pick.

[semlogo]

All posts where you have said you would not follow God's commandment if He commanded you to kill are effective claims that your moral judgement is superior to God's. Starting with #46 on this thread, but especially post #56:

"I feel equally safe in saying I well never kill a child. Or harm a child in any way. It doesn't matter if God Himself comes down and face to face tells me to do it."

It's a reflection of my confidence in the absolute morality of God. You're reading things into it that aren't there.

Not in all circumstances. You have agreed that killing a fetus is under some circumstances not murder. Who is more innocent than a fetus?

You oversimplify, ignoring distinctions between embryo, zygote, and fetus.

Apparently you do not understand what moral relativism is.

If I didn't, I would understand it perfectly by now, having had you as a perfect example of moral relativism in every post you've made in this thread.

Yes, because, again, molestation is a morally-charged term, like murder and rape.

Again with this dodge. Forget what it's called. Is the act always evil or not? You don't want to answer this question because you know it would destroy the entire faulty argument you've built to admit that child molestation (or whatever safe word you prefer to call it) is always wrong.

[Ahab]

I see 2 guys talking past each other while talking about how to determine what is good and what is evil.

semlogo,

You seem to be saying people should rely on the scriptures to understand God and God's perception of what is good, and yet at the same time you seem to be saying the scriptures don't accurately reflect God's perception of what is good.

Is the OT scripture or not, in your perspective?

If you accept the OT as scripture, does that mean you accept the OT as a guide for understanding God and God's perception of what is good?

If you accept the OT as scripture as well as a guide for understanding God and God's perception of what is good, then why do you have a problem accepting the idea that God commanded the slaughter of some children and that it was good when God did that?

If you believe God gave that command, which you must believe if you consider the OT to be scripture and a guide to correctly understanding God and God's perception of what is good, then killing those children had to be a good thing to do under those circumstances because God will only do what is good while also commanding other people to do only what is good.

I think that if you accept the OT as scripture and as a guide to understanding God and God's perception of what is good, then you should have no problem understanding that killing children is a good thing to do sometimes, in certain conditions, otherwise God would not give any command to kill children, which you must believe he did if you accept the OT as scripture.

[Jason]

It's a reflection of my confidence in the absolute morality of God. You're reading things into it that aren't there.

I am showing you the logical consequence of taking such a position.

You are confident that God will never ask you to kill a child. Do you think Abraham was just as confident?

You oversimplify, ignoring distinctions between embryo, zygote, and fetus.

You seem to have said you agree with the Church's position, correct? The Church's position makes no distinctions between embryo, zygote, and fetus.

If I didn't, I would understand it perfectly by now, having had you as a perfect example of moral relativism in every post you've made in this thread.

Either you do not understand my position or you do not understand moral relativism. Take your pick.

Again with this dodge. Forget what it's called. Is the act always evil or not? You don't want to answer this question because you know it would destroy the entire faulty argument you've built to admit that child molestation (or whatever safe word you prefer to call it) is always wrong.

I cannot think of any circumstances under which engaging in sexual activity with a child would be moral, but that doesn't mean that there are no such circumstances. I am, after all, ultimately more limited in my imagination and understanding than is God. If I were commanded to do such a thing by God I hope that I would (after appropriate verification that it is in fact God speaking), trust that His judgement is superior to my own and follow His command.

Hopefully there would be a ram in the thicket.

[wenglund]

wenglund: Two comments. First, I think you are misunderstanding something semlogo is trying to convey. Namely, the primacy of our conscience in making moral decisions. Sure, God is smarter and better at making moral decisions than we are. Sure you have a point that he seems to be missing. But, you really need to present the entire picture, which includes us mortals trying to make decisions according to what our conscience tells us.

My comments presuppose, rather than ignore, that mortals are trying to make decisions according to their consciences. To me, it goes without say--though I can respect if you think differently, and I appreciate and respect your differing point of view.

However, I don't believe that one's conscience ought to have primacy over the will of God, though agency allows men to choose otherwise. I believe it is best for man to subject their conscience to God, thereby making their conscience one with God. In so doing, mankind is elevated and becomes more godly--which, according to the gospel, is the intended goal for us.

Second, I think you may have crossed the line between explaining why you view a particular position as idolatry, and actually judging (and continuing to judge) someone as being idolatrous. You made your point. Do you believe that continuing in the manner you are is helping those you are communicating with to come to Christ? [You only have to answer that for yourself, of course.

I don't know that my point has been understood in the way that I intended (as you suggested above, it may have been "missed"). My intent, though, wasn't to judge, but rather to clarify and convey understanding. I can accept though, that I may have failed in my attempt, and so I appreciate your feedback.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I don't believe that one's conscience ought to have primacy over the will of God, though agency allows men to choose otherwise. I believe it is best for man to subject their conscience to God, thereby making their conscience one with God. In so doing, mankind is elevated and becomes more godly--which, according to the gospel, is the intended goal for us.

Makes sense to me, but what if you thought God was telling you to do something you thought was wrong?

Can you understand why semlogo might not think it was God who would be telling him to do something which he thought was wrong?

Can you imagine why semlogo might think it was Satan who was telling him to do something which he thought was wrong?

Take Abraham, for example, with the idea that what is written in the OT about Abraham is true. Think about what Abraham probably thought when some person/being told him to kill his own son, Isaac. Think about what it would be to cause Abraham to think it was God who was telling him to do that, rather than Satan. Why would God tell Abraham to kill his own son? Why would God do that? Can you imagine why someone might think it was Satan who was telling Abraham to do that, rather than God? Satan can be very tricky, you know. Maybe Satan was doing his very best at impersonating God, such that Abraham just thought it was God, when it really was Satan?

I'm not saying it was Satan. I'm just asking you if you know how Abraham would be able to tell that it really was God, and not Satan, who was telling him to do that. Surely Abraham must have had some kind of internal struggle within himself regarding what (whoever it was) told him to do. It wouldn't be an easy thing for him to do, and I'm sure the thought that it was wrong crossed his mind at least a few times after he received that message.

Imagine how you would feel, and what you would think, if God said something like that to you.

How would you even know it was God, if you thought that what (that person/being) told you was wrong?

Now imagine that you are semlogo, and then ask yourself how you would know that it was God who was telling you to do something like that.

[semlogo]

Is the OT scripture or not, in your perspective?

I think the Pentateuch and the books of history are a mixture of a myths and scripture.The prophetic and poetic books are less problematic.

I think most people find that they don't get much out of the OT - certainly very little compared to the other scriptures.

[semlogo]

*I am showing you the logical consequence of taking such a position.

You are confident that God will never ask you to kill a child. Do you think Abraham was just as confident?

**You seem to have said you agree with the Church's position, correct? The Church's position makes no distinctions between embryo, zygote, and fetus.

***Either you do not understand my position or you do not understand moral relativism. Take your pick.

****I cannot think of any circumstances under which engaging in sexual activity with a child would be moral, but that doesn't mean that there are no such circumstances. I am, after all, ultimately more limited in my imagination and understanding than is God. If I were commanded to do such a thing by God I hope that I would (after appropriate verification that it is in fact God speaking), trust that His judgement is superior to my own and follow His command.

Hopefully there would be a ram in the thicket.

*God never wanted Abraham to kill his son. There is only one "god" who would desire the murder of children - we call him Satan.

**The church's position calls for discernment and counseling with the Bishop. Again, you oversimplify when it suits you.

***Your position is the very definition of moral relativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

****It's incredible to me that anyone calling himself a believer in God would make this statement. "I cannot think of any circumstances under which engaging in sexual activity with a child would be moral, but that doesn't mean that there are no such circumstances." Perhaps you make this statement in church next Sunday, and see what comes of it. At the very least, you'd never receive a calling in the primary for the rest of your life.

[Jason]

*God never wanted Abraham to kill his son. There is only one "god" who would desire the murder of children - we call him Satan.

Yet Abraham did not feel it was Satan commanding him.

Abraham obviously did not feel that God could not command him to kill his son.

Is your moral judgement superior to Abraham's?

**The church's position calls for discernment and counseling with the Bishop. Again, you oversimplify when it suits you.

And allows that under certain cirucmstances, with this conselling, abortion can be acceptable.

***Your position is the very definition of moral relativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Since you apparently do understand something of what moral relativism is (or at least can link to articles that attempt to explain it), you obviously do not understand my position.

I'm not sure what more I can do to explain it to you.

I most sincerely do believe that good and evil are real things, and that they do not depend on anyone's opinion in any way.

****It's incredible to me that anyone calling himself a believer in God would make this statement. "I cannot think of any circumstances under which engaging in sexual activity with a child would be moral, but that doesn't mean that there are no such circumstances." Perhaps you make this statement in church next Sunday, and see what comes of it. At the very least, you'd never receive a calling in the primary for the rest of your life.

You wanted an answer. No other answer can be given that is logically consistent with recognizing that our moral judgement is inferrior to God's.

[wenglund]

Where is this distinction made in the scriptures?

I alluded to at least one passage when I intimated that God's ways are not our ways.

Everyone must decide for themselves.

Not everyone. Many of us are willing to let God decide for us since we believe he knows better than us what he has inspired or not. To each their own.

But you can't reasonably accept them all as inspired, when the genocides of the Pentateuch contradict so much of the spirit of the NT and BoM.

Unlike you, I don't presume to dictate to God what can reasonably be accepted as inspired or not. I let him dictate that to me since I believe he is in a better position than I to know.

God has already spoken for himself.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Yes, and were that all that he has spoken on the matter, or could speak on the matter, you may have a point. But, unlike you, I will let him tell me if that is his only and final word on the matter, and whether our finite and fallible interpretations are the final arbitor.

I don't decide for God.

That is what you keep saying. Yet, you contradict this by making statements like "Everyone must decide that for themselves". Perhaps without intending, you have nevertheless repeatedly made yourself, and not God, the judge of what is moral for God and what is inspired of God. At some point, with my continued demonstrations, you may finally see this.

God decided for Himself when he sent His son to teach His Father's will.

Yes. And, some of us are willing to continue to be humbly taught, from grace to grace, by both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Others of us seem intent on arrogantly restricting the Father's will and morals to the confines of their own finite and fallible and fundamentalist understanding of the scriptures.

Unless you think God is a hypocrite who is unwilling to practice what He preaches.

Unlike apparently with you, I don't view God as hypocritical for deciding not to practice the lower law that he had given men, but determined to abide instead the higher law of Godliness, just as I would not view the mortal Christ or his disciples as hypocrites for not practicing the Law of Moses that God once commanded, but abiding instead the new law of Christ. To view either as hypocritical would be something the Scribes and Pharisees might errantly do, and this because they, like you, tend to lean on their own understanding of the scriptures, and dictate, perhaps unwittingly, to God what God could or could not do and what would be hypocritical for God to do our not.

Is that what you think? That the Man of Righteousness is a hypocrite?

No. Obviously.

I don't think that.

Clearly, though perhaps unintentionally, you do. Your statement above unwittingly implies as much.

God set the standard. If His ways are indeed higher than our ways, then I am correct. If His ways are lower than our ways, then you are correct. Take your pick.

You somehow managed to get your conclusions exactly backwards. If man's ways are lower than God's ways, and since you have explicitly stated that man should decide for themselves what is inspired and moral, rather than letting God decide that for them, then logically your way is the lower way. And if God's ways are higher than man's ways, and since I explicitly state the God should decide for man what is inspired and moral, then logically my way (or rather God's way) is the higher way. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

*God never wanted Abraham to kill his son. There is only one "god" who would desire the murder of children - we call him Satan.

Isaac was no child when he lay on the altar and when his father raised the knife to take the life of his long-awaited son. He was at least 25 and probably in his early 30s, or even older.

Lehi

[semlogo]

Yet Abraham did not feel it was Satan commanding him.

Abraham obviously did not feel that God could not command him to kill his son.

Is your moral judgement superior to Abraham's?

I'd venture than most modern people of good character have a superior grasp of morality. Abraham was, after all, a primitive man in many respects.

Since you apparently do understand something of what moral relativism is (or at least can link to articles that attempt to explain it), you obviously do not understand my position.

I think we both know that you're a moral relativist. Your objection to being called on is likely due to the fact that you don't like the term. But you're a moral relativist in ever respect.

You wanted an answer. No other answer can be given that is logically consistent with recognizing that our moral judgement is inferrior to God's.

Yes, it's logically consistent with the rest of your argument, and reveals just how absurd your argument is. You're saying that God can do anything because He's God.

"Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God."

[wenglund]

Makes sense to me, but what if you thought God was telling you to do something you thought was wrong?

I would defer to God--that is, assuming that I had sufficient certitude that it was God telling me.

Can you understand why semlogo might not think it was God who would be telling him to do something which he thought was wrong?

Sure. Semilogo evidently gives primacy to his conscience, even over God, in determining what is or is not of God. That, to some degree, has been my point.

Can you imagine why semlogo might think it was Satan who was telling him to do something which he thought was wrong?

I can imagine all sorts of explanations that Semilogo might reasonably come up with.

Take Abraham, for example, with the idea that what is written in the OT about Abraham is true. Think about what Abraham probably thought when some person/being told him to kill his own son, Isaac. Think about what it would be to cause Abraham to think it was God who was telling him to do that, rather than Satan. Why would God tell Abraham to kill his own son? Why would God do that? Can you imagine why someone might think it was Satan who was telling Abraham to do that, rather than God? Satan can be very tricky, you know. Maybe Satan was doing his very best at impersonating God, such that Abraham just thought it was God, when it really was Satan?

Yes, there are all sorts of reasonable hypotheticals about what Abraham might have experienced. I just happen to believe that God did command Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Surely Abraham must have had some kind of internal struggle within himself regarding what (whoever it was) told him to do. It wouldn't be an easy thing for him to do, and I'm sure the thought that it was wrong crossed his mind at least a few times after he received that message.

I don't wish to second guess or read Abraham's mind. It is sufficient for me to believe that he had sufficient certitude that God had commanded him to sacrifice his son. And, instead of leaning unto his own understanding (which likely, because of his own repugnant experience in a failed attempt in being offered for sacrifice by his father to a false god, disposed him considerably against it), trusted instead in the wisdom and love of God. He subbordinated his conscience to the will of God, and was subsequently blessed for so doing.

...then ask yourself how you would know that it was God who was telling you to do something like that.

I would have to know in the same way or to the same level of certitude as Abraham, and nothing less.

The point, though, is whether we are willing to trust God more than ourselves. Jason and I seem willing to do so, whereas semilogo seems not. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-