No moral person should be a Christian

I was half-expecting to get some answers to my previous question, but owing to poor Christian readership of this blog, I think I may as well skip straight to the point that I intended to make from it.

The first question is a simple one:
Do you think it is moral to tie your child up on an altar and slit his throat? (Apologies for the graphic imagery, but I’d like to make my point as succinctly as possible).

The question that follows is:
Can you think of a circumstance in which this would be a moral thing to do?

But now we introduce God, then next question becomes:
If you were 100% that God personally communicated with you and told you to do it, would you do it?

According to Christian theology, faith would require that you do as God tells you.
The counter-argument that ‘God would ask of no such thing’ would prove your own ignorance of the very book which you call ‘holy’. In the OT God commanded the genocide of entire populations; He commanded men to eat their own sons and daughters; and for bears to attack unruly teenagers — so considering that these biblical accounts are true, and assuming that you are not ignorant of your own Bible, the question holds:

Would you do it?

If you would, then well done, you would be a true Christian; for such is the grand nature of Faith. You would trust God to take precedence over own sense of morality. After all, why wouldn’t you? Who are you to question the will of God, and who are you allow your human sense of morality to disrupt his divine plan?

To be a Christian is to allow for this possibility — for the possibility that your moral sense can be overridden, so long as your God is behind it.

Therefore, and especially given the track record of God having commanded such acts, I think it is safe to say that no sincerely moral person should be a Christian.


NB: Morality* here can be taken to mean god-given or otherwise; I don’t think the argument is weakened in any way so long as you answered “no” to the first question. Nor do I think a long debate as to the semantic variances or existence per se of morality would be necessary for the purpose of the argument that is here put forward (but you are welcome to be the judge of that).

NB 2: I am aware that we live after NT times, and of the objection that may potentially be raised on this point. If so, then allow my question to be but a hypothetical one: assume that you are indeed living in OT times — and the moral dilemma presented would be the same in every way from a modern standpoint. I can also think off the top of my head of one immediate point of contention in response to a similar argument that “But the OT laws have been revoked and God no longer will ask of such things”; if we know that God was once capable of such acts, why are we so confident that he shall not do so again in the near future? Who is to say that NT laws shan’t too be revoked, and what if the next set of laws should call for atrocities twice as gruesome? Seeing as you can accept the atrocities of the OT, am I correct in assuming that such laws if replicated in the future would not disturb you or cause you to abandon your faith? If so then I stand to my point: No moral person should ever be a Christian.

About these ads