I didn’t want to crush her skull but I had to so she would go up to the sky

Disturbing story here.

Not a lot of information in the article about the man who nearly beat his young daughter to death but it is worth mentioning  because of one thing we do know.

“He was just babbling about God’s coming for everyone and he’s got to get the evil out of his daughter,” Gilbert said.

If I had to guess I would assume mental illness is to blame here and I don’t think I would be wrong.

Yet there are God haters and scoffers who wasted no time rushing to blame God and religion, specifically the Bible, for this clearly ungodly and unbiblical beating. Here’s a very small sample of what I found online in less than five minutes.

Is now a good time for everyone here to go read Genesis 22 which recounts the story of how God commanded Abraham to place his son Isaac upon an altar and cut his throat as a sacrifice?

He was following the christian faith, which advocates killing people for many different reasons.

Everyone knows there are a lot of people on the internet who aren’t exactly deep thinkers but seriously. Does anyone truly believe the Bible either teaches or condones parents killing their children?

If you believe either, perhaps you should read this. It’ll only take a minute and it might change your life.

 

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity

Tags: , , , , , ,

43 replies

  1. Sad story. Or maybe a good one because a man that doesn’t want to be thought a hero took a great risk to save a child? That’s the nature of sacrificial love in action. Rather then evidence that the world is a scary place, maybe this is evidence that people do have some redeeming qualities after all?

    That’s what God does, He helps us to change our perceptions. Where others can only see darkness and fear, we see hope and our Savior.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I definitely agree James; I believe a man that beats a child must be mentally unstable. Hopefully he will never get to see this child again.

    Like

  3. Horrible story, and I absolutely agree that this is mental illness. However, when someone has the deep religious conviction that God wants him to kill his children, how do we differentiate this from God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac? Yes, I understand that was a test. Yes, I understand that God stopped him. However, there have been people who have killed their children who have said “I was so sure God would stop me.”

    If you perceived that God was telling you to kill your son, would you? I know that there are all sorts of reasons why you don’t think God would do this, but IF you honestly perceived that God was telling you to do so, would you follow through?

    Like

    • Jon,

      You say there are all sorts of reasons I would give as to why God wouldn’t ask me to kill my kids and you’re right. In fact, you probably know those reasons without me saying anything.

      In fact, you know my God doesn’t ask people to kill their kids. So, why ask such a silly hypothetical question?

      Like

      • I’m not sure I see that as being silly. You say that God doesn’t ask that, but he did at least once that we know of. I know Christian theology says God wouldn’t do that again, but for that matter, I would assume that Abraham never expected God would ask that of him either.

        Besides, the question, more than ‘if your God asked that of you’ was ‘if you perceived that your God was asking that of you.’ Regardless of whether or not there is a god, and regardless of whether or not he would ask this of his followers, people who do such things undoubtedly believe they are doing them in the name of their faith and their god.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Of course it’s silly Jon. You said you know Christian theology doesn’t teach it but…

          Anyway, when I lived in West Texas a man cut his hand off and cooked it on his grill because he thought God told him to. Did he really think God told him to? Of course. Did he also have a mental problem? As it turns out, yes he did.

          Bottom line here is that God does not ask people to commit crimes so asking Christians if they would commit crimes for God is, as I said, silly.

          Like

          • Wow – I’d hate to be invited over for rump roast. 🙂

            Many Christians, however, would say that anything God commands, by definition, cannot be a crime (or stated otherwise: anything God commands is, by definition, moral). Therefore if God commanded it, regardless of our outlook or limited understanding, it could not be considered a ‘crime.’ Criminality is something that is purely societal. There are a great many Christians who feel obligated to commit various crimes (either through civil disobedience or through active means) because they view God’s laws as being higher than man’s.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Jon,

            Define many Christians here, I think you are just making an assertion that you can’t quantify so you just use the generic term “many.”

            And, you are skirting around Devine Command Theory which many (see how annoying that is) Christians, including myself, reject.

            When you say “anything God commands is moral” you make God’s morality arbitrary and changing which is not what we know about God from the Bible.

            God is perfect and can do no wrong, He is always just, and His ways are always right.

            Also, do we have a problem in society where people put God’s laws above the laws of men? Sure, there is the occasional case like the one in the article but they are outliers, not the norm.

            Liked by 1 person

          • As for the use of “many,” you are absolutely right. That is an assertion, and I can in no way quantify it. I’m certainly not going to paint with so broad a brush as to say “all Christians,” and I certainly think it’s going too far even to say “most Christians.” I’m not sure that you and I have ever had much of a conversation on morality, so I certainly couldn’t say “you.” My intent wasn’t to be annoying.

            However, as one example, something that I have heard from many Christians (an unknown number/percentage of conversations I’ve had, albeit certainly more than a handful of times) is that of the sixth commandment. God says “Thou shalt not kill,” yet there are times when he commands just that. The reasoning (which I actually don’t dispute) is that the translation of the commandment better applies to murder–or criminal killing. I’ve heard this phrased in much the same way as you did earlier: God does not/cannot commit crimes or command people to commit crimes. In this sense, no matter how horrendous it may have seemed to [sacrifice Isaac / slaughter the Amalekites / whatever], we know it was good because that is what God commanded.

            Some Christians ascribe this to something specific like Divine Command Theory. Others something generic like “God surely has his reasons.” Personally, I don’t see much of a difference aside from semantics, and yes, I think it is ultimately arbitrary.

            As for the laws of God vs. the laws of men, are these people really the outliers? Whether it’s issues that tie into gay marriage, abortion, etc. there I a huge call for people to reject the laws of man based on the laws of God. The news regularly features stories of people who cite God’s laws as the reason why they won’t conform to society’s ‘wicked ways.’ Granted, this is something entirely different from wanting to beat the evil out of your child, but is this not a product of the same idea: that it is always better to obey God than to obey man?

            Like

    • This is becoming a tricky one because if someone thought they heard a voice or had a thought that came from their god that told them to kill someone in Christian countries they would be by default considered a mentally ill person, on the other hand Islamic suicide bombers and all of these knife wielding nuts who dispatch heads from innocent people’s shoulders are not considered as mentally ill but have been radicalised. Therefore, this leads to questions about the dangers of indoctrination and where is the line drawn between mental illness and radicalisation?

      Liked by 1 person

      • You don’t draw a line between two things that have nothing to do with each other Steve.

        The person who beat his daughter had an illness, Radical Muslims are taught to kill by people.

        Like

        • I am not saying that these are the same level of crimes and I understand in developed Christian countries crimes like this are rare, however the underlying commonality is the fact that they used religious scripture as their justification.

          I understand some fundamentalist Christian groups follow the Bible to the letter such as “Proverbs 23 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” This is a command and as mentally ill this man may have been I imagine this father may have felt somewhat justified because of this Biblical passage.

          The fact that Islamic extremist terrorists go on killing sprees is not solely attributed to how mentally sick and politically aggrieved they are because it is obvious the Islamic religion is their justification don’t you agree? It is also true that you are taught how to kill only because you personally can justify the cause you are killing for.

          The only logic that comes from this is that if people’s lives are ruled on a daily basis by an ancient religion with ancient outdated rules there will be those with mental problems that literally undertake both the good and the bad from the doctrine.

          Liked by 1 person

      • I’m not sure Christian countries always default to the idea of mental illness. There are cases like David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, and others wherein we do ascribe this to fundamental beliefs and not mental illness. However, like you indicated, I think a lot of it boils down to how literally the texts (whether the Bible or the Qur’an) are interpreted. Liberal Muslims aren’t reading a different Qur’an, they’re reading the Qur’an differently. The same applies with Christianity. However, this in itself, would seem to present a problem for a book that is supposedly the word of God. How is it that so many people with so many widely varied beliefs can use the same ‘perfect’ book to justify blatantly contradictory ideas?

        Like

        • Jon,

          I’m glad you brought up Koresh here.

          Unlike the guy in the parking lot, I wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that Koresh had a mental disorder although that is possible for sure.

          What I would do with him is evaluate what he did and taught against Scripture and then make a determination as to whether he was following Christian theology.

          Could also be that Koresh was just plain evil.

          Liked by 1 person

        • It has always been a bit of a contentious issue as to what causes people to go off the rails. The difference between genuine mental disorder or what is called these days as radicalisation for terrorists is in my opinion a non-existent line.

          There are many individuals who could be called radical, extremist, fanatical or activists in what they believe about religion and politics or anything else but have the mental stability to not apply hate and violence to force their ideology onto others, therefore there must be a point where the persons mind actually becomes entirely disorientated and emotionally subjugated to their ideology and will become completely separated from reality that they will go as far as to take lives or give their own lives in the belief they are pursuing their own eternal life and their gods wishes.

          Interpretation of the Bible and Qur’an as you say is a major problem and this is the catalyst for the diversity of these religions. It is an indictment against these religious scriptures because of the flexibility allowing misunderstanding and interpretations to justify violence as you suggest.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I see what you’re saying about there needing to be some sort of “breaking point” that causes fanaticism to cross the line into violence and terrorism, but I’m still not sure this can (wholly) be credited to mental issues. I don’t deny that this could be a factor; I just wouldn’t say it inherently is.

            The first example that comes to my mind is the civil rights era. Prior to that time, there was a fundamental belief (racism) that frequently led to lynchings and other acts of violence. Today, such violence is nowhere near as common, but I don’t think that’s because there are less people who are mentally ill. Rather, society has changed in what we teach and what we accept.

            I think it’s probably the same with terrorism. it isn’t always mental illness; more likely, it’s a result of the teachings with which these people are indoctrinated.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Yes Jon, I see where you are coming from. The situation is that I think the mob mentality kicks in from a large number or sometimes even only a handful of people who likely at first did not plan on any violence. Depending on the individuals’ commitment to the belief or reason they are there, coupled with influence and encouragement from their own group often this becomes powerful motivation that drives the emotional and justifiable state of mind. This mind rejects the morals and the danger with normally placid individuals committing to mob violence.

            I do not claim this is a permanent mental issue, however I believe it alters the mind enough to cause temporary personality changes to someone who more often than not will not understand why they participated.

            Of course if you commit violence and participate in atrocities in the name of a god and ideology that you have been indoctrinated into and the ideology is often the basis of the state laws and how you live your daily life it would be easier to become contented with this violent environment (such as public decapitation) as many Muslim communities in certain countries exist today.

            Of course in the case of Islamic terrorists who are continually subjected to their idealised doctrine, military training and mind manipulation, recruits will no doubt have their state of mind changed beyond indoctrination to a point of no return and arguably they have become mentally ill as they will offer their lives for the ideology believing they will be martyred and have their place in heaven.

            I think if you live the environment, you become the environment, another words, where do you draw the line at conditioning the mind before you can call it a mental sickness?

            Liked by 1 person

  4. My God is good to me and therefore would never ask me to do something that would collapse my psyche. He has great respect for us and our mental and spiritual well being. In Genesis he doesn’t just pop Adam’s rib out, He causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep. God’s anesthesia. He didn’t have to,He could have just popped that rib out and Adam probably would have survived. God loves us however, He has compassion for us and no desire to cause needless suffering. So, it wasn’t God that was telling that man to hurt that child. It could have been something demonic impersonating God, but it wasn’t God. God heals, Satan destroys.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Absolutely right IB.

      Not only is it sad that people rush to blame God for such heinous crimes, it’s also insulting to people who really struggle with mental illness.

      How is mental illness ever supposed to get the attention it needs if conversations are always about something else?

      Like

  5. Ib writes…
    My God is good to me and therefore would never ask me to do something that would collapse my psyche. ”

    Then what DO you make of Gen 22? Especially when the text explicitly says God was tempting Abraham with sin. I know how I used to answer, but how would you, James or ib?
    -kia

    Like

    • Mike,

      Are you comparing an obviously delusional man who tried to beat his daughter to death so she could go up to the sky to Abraham?

      If so, you are missing an important point.

      Abraham knew that God had promised him offspring through Isaac, so this gave him reason to believe that God did not intend for Isaac to die permanently:

      By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

      Do you think this man was taking the Bible literally and was commanded to kill his daughter?

      James

      Like

      • Actually, I was asking you about Gen 22 and how it differs

        Like

        • And I am asking you how it’s the same. I say the man has a mental disorder of some kind, you brought up Genesis 22. The burden to state how what this man did relates to Genesis 22 is yours.

          Like

          • Simply,the man in the news was a mental case and should go away for a long time.
            There is no historical or archaeological evidence that Abraham ever actually existed. The point is that you believe he did and take Gen 22 time be actual history.
            So, the question is back to you

            Like

          • The jist of the post Mike was how crazy it is to justify what this guy did using the Bible and/or make a case against Christianity or the Bible because of it.

            Now you are using the post as a springboard to question me about archaeology. I submit that is even more crazy.

            While it is true that we would like to have more archaeological evidence than we now have, from an archaeologist’s perspective anyway, this is always the case. That being said, your assertion that no evidence exists, is an overstatement which cannot be substantiated. 

            If you want to comment here, stay on topic and substantiate your claims.

            James

            Like

          • So I guess that means you aren’t going to answer

            Like

          • No but don’t confuse my not answering with the the idea that there is no answer.

            Like

        • Mike, this is easy.

          That text never says God tempted Abraham with sin. Nice try

          God TESTED Abraham. You know this, and your attempts to cloud the issue say a lot.

          Let me summarize. Your assertion that God tempted Abraham with sin in Genesis 22 is factually incorrect.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Actually wally, check the KJV again. It does say tempt

            Liked by 1 person

          • Perhaps Mike you should check both the KJV and what you said. Quote “the text explicitly says God was tempting Abraham with sin”

            The problem is…um…the text doesn’t say that.

            Your assertion is false.

            Period

            Liked by 1 person

          • Mike,

            I have been wondering about this since you wrote it.

            I understand you are transitioning out of the faith and have a very different opinion of it than I do but how, after 25 years of studying and teaching the Bible, could you possibly get this wrong?

            Not only were you wrong once, which could have been a typo, you were called on it and you doubled down.

            It’s Theology 101 Mike.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I did say explicitly say tempt to sin. But tempt is the word and murder of an innocent is about as sinful as it gets. Unless you’re the biblical God.
            And by the way James and wally, don’t bother with trying to teach me theology. I have decades more experience and study than you. Don’t be so arrogant

            Like

          • You say you have decades of study yet you consistently get theology wrong. I find this curious.

            Like

          • Who is being arrogant, Mike

            You stated what you stated. Additionally, what you stated is both factually and contextually incorrect.

            So, either you don’t actually understand the text, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. Just because you may have been doing this for decades does not change the fact that you are in error here.

            Liked by 1 person

          • You are correct Wally.

            In Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempted” is the word nacah, and it means “to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test.” Because it has so many possible synonyms, we must look to the context and compare it to other passages.

            As we read the account of the event, we note that God did not intend Abraham to complete the sacrifice of Isaac. However, Abraham did not know that and was willing to carry out God’s orders, knowing that if God did require this, He was able to raise Isaac up from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19).

            This passage in Hebrews is better translated “Abraham was ‘tried,’” instead of saying he was “tempted.” So, the conclusion is that in Genesis 22:1 the Hebrew word translated “tempt” has to do with testing or evaluating something.

            Liked by 1 person

          • That particular issue is really low hanging fruit, James. Children in Sunday School understand that story better than some fully grown “ministers” apparently

            Liked by 1 person

          • The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing Wally. That’s the only thing that makes such a lack of understanding make sense.

            Liked by 1 person

          • It’s all about context after all.

            James 1:13 makes it clear that God does not tempt us to sin: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.”

            You’d think someone (Mike) who was a minister for 25 years would have a better understanding of The Word.

            Liked by 1 person

  6. I think the existence of evil should not be forgotten in this equation. We all want to blame things like this on mental illness, but for the most part the mentally ill are not violent. Sometimes when you talk to cops, social workers, nurses, we just can’t explain why some people go in one direction and others do bad things. The existence of evil is really the only thing that fits. There’s a lot of denial about that in the world today, we’re all looking for solutions, problems we can fix to prevent this sort of thing, but it’s actually a complex issue. Some people have every advantage, including sound mental health, and they comit atrocities. Some people come into the world with horrific challenges and make something good out of it.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: