I posed a Question on Quora : If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

My Q

If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?
https://www.quora.com/If-God-had-been-a-policeman-and-Abraham-a-criminal-would-God-have-been-guilty-of-conspiracy-to-crime-or-provocation-to-crime-even-if-intending-fully-to-stop-Abraham-from-killing-Isaac-under-current-US-law

Context link

Continuing with Dave Robson
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/continuing-with-dave-robson.html

A I

James Fame

former Consultant

Answered Jan 24

Absolutely not. The Constitution states, “No ex post facto laws shall be passed”. Since the alleged crime happened about 3600 years before the United States was born, I don’t think our laws would apply.

Besides, it is likely that the statute of limitations would also exempt God from prosecution.

Then there is the matter of jurisdiction. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”. I think he can charge you, but you can’t charge him.

Of course it is possible that it would be an interesting case. I hear the other side has most of the lawyers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

“I hear the other side has most of the lawyers.”

Brilliant! Wonder how Anthony Zarrella sees that one!

A II

Roger Van Allen Shelton Jr.

Answered Wed

I don’t know how legal stuff works. But I’d assume the answer is yes. But only if a crime had been carried out. Usually if a conspiracy charge is served, a crime has been committed. It doesn’t always have to be the crime “planned”.

EXAMPLE:

A guy goes into a tough bar with the intent to hire someone to kill his wife. He finds a shady individual, offers him $1.000 to kill her, but says $500.00 now, and the other $500.00 when she’s dead. No crime has been committed. However, once he hands the first $500.00 is transferred from one person to another, a crime has been committed. A contract had been agreed upon and the wheels are set into motion for a murder. The dollar amount isn’t even important. He could give the would be assassin $1.00 and the crime has taken place.

People talk all the time about committing crimes. They even detail out how they’d do it if they were going to do it. But no crime has been committed until action has been taken in the direction of committing the crime.

A person can talk all day long about how they’re going to rob a bank, even detailing which bank and how they’re going to rob it. But until they enter that bank and notify the teller that a robbery is taken place, no crime has been committed. And also, if a bank robber tries to rob a bank, but changes his mind after telling the teller he/she is being robbed, even if he doesn’t take a single penny, he’s committed a crime.

As far as God and Abraham is concerned… Abraham believed fully and without doubt that God wanted him to murder his child. Because Abraham’s beliefs, God would have been charged with a crime, I’m just not sure what crime specifically.

There have been way too many cases where women got involved with men, but had children from previous relationships. The new man in the woman’s life indicated to her how much better their lives would be without that extra “baggage”. Some of these men have even suggested the woman make these children disappear or he would leave her and find another woman without children. So, those women murdered their children just to keep this man they desperately love. IDK if the boyfriend is charged with the murder of the children, but in my honest opinion he should be, as if he himself had killed them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

“ But only if a crime had been carried out.”

So, since Abraham did NOT kill his son, God should not be charged?

A III

David Aldred

Catholic, family man, web guy.

Answered Jan 24

Logically, but meaninglessly, yes.

Since your question is predicated on premises of which one is false and one highly questionable, the conclusion is meaningless. That’s basic logic.

A similar question: if water was dry, woudl all dinosaurs be yellow? Again, the answer is ‘yes’, since a false premise can logically imply anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

Thank you!

A IV

Bruce R. Bain

former Retired Wire Rope Rigger at Union Supply Company

Answered Jan 24

The question indicates a lack of knowledge of theology.

Religious doctrines when studied, reveal that God is subject to no law.

Oddly, people frequently assume that their conceptions of laws or commandments can be used to judge God, which is of course, unfounded by any fact in theology.

Furthermore, such propositions engage in complications. In this inquiry for example, what is obvious to the rational person is that there is a presumption that “God exists”. The difficulty with that is that no argument for the existence of God accompanies the inquiry in the context of law.

Such a consideration is illustrative of fundamenatal errors, because when the violation of a law is considered, it must be also considered that “the accused” is factual or fictitious, and to accomplish this, there must be objectively identifiable premises.

In order to consider “God” in the context of “current US law” it must be shown that God exists as a citizen of the United States of America. That has not been accomplished. Because if God is not a citizen of the United States, God is not subject to US Law.

Were the actions of God considered in the case of an International Court, there would have to be an argument (or evidence) of the existence of God in order to prosecute the case.

Any such court would need to show that God’s existence, as well as identifiable commandments by God, are subject to International Law.

It is an enterprise rife with complications and difficulties in any prosecutorial domain.

A court presuming to question God as a matter of jurisdiction would be regarded as the Folly—of—-the—-Ages.

Of course, all of the issue beginning with the designation if shows that the entire affair is merely speculation rather than fact.

Speculation hardly constitutes an evidence.

Neither will U. S. Law as a system of jurisprudence ever show itself authoritative in jurisdiction over God.

(Of course, I am not an attorney, but from what I have read and studied, it would be unlikely that any court in the U.S. would regard Isaac as a U. S. Citizen whose right to life had been violated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

Thank you!

A V

Therion Tiberius Ware

VOD engineer in broadcast TV. (2003-present)

Answered Sat

Q: If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

Ha! Presumably God is a corrupt cop then, seeing he demands the sacrifice. The best interpretation of the Abraham/Issac story is that God wished to graphically illustrate to Abraham how far he would be willing to go in the service of his God.

Which is to say, all the way!

These days one imagines Abraham would be sectioned fairly quickly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7m ago

God may have had a reason to make the demand than rather than now.

As to then, God stopped him from actually killing.