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.
Awesome post. Very well done. Those that claim to be in NT times still hold to OT laws but cherry pick which to abide by. The use of common morality to choose which OT laws are good is a complete demonstration of objective morality. Pointedly putting the question as you have is excellent. If their god’s will _IS_ moral, then next week it could be moral to murder newborns to eat their genitals when fried with sweet onions… or whatever he commands to be moral.
“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).”
No. Which is why God would never ask me to do such a thing.
“Can you think of a circumstance in which this would be a moral thing to do?”
Already answered that question.
“If you were 100% that God personally communicated with you and told you to do it, would you do it?”
These questions are getting repetitive.
“He commanded men to eat their own sons and daughters…”
No, he didn’t. He said that it will come to pass and it did–due to famine.
Ezekiel 5:8-10
8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.
9 And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.
10 Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.
Jeremiah 19:7-9
7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.
9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
Deuteronomy 28:53
49 The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
51 And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.
52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
Leviticus 26:28-9
28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
….
Awkward.
In case anyone else wishes to attempt the “it’s out of context” line, consider this:
“Can you think of a circumstance in which it would be a moral thing to eat your own children?”
However, in the right context (ie. as a God-given punishment for Israel’s sins), it would be justifiable amirite.
So let’s say you’ve committed a horrendous sin and God punishes you by telling you that you must eat your own children.
Or let’s say you’ve committed no horrendous sin at all and God tells you to go on a killing spree in his name — against those who have sinned.
Or to sacrifice your own child as a test of faith.
I doubt my question has changed one bit.
Consider the following accounts also:
Genesis 22:2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
Deuteronomy 25:11 “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”
Or this: Isaiah 20:2 At that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. (for three years) LOL.
Does God sound very predictable to you? Well, I rest my case.
“Leviticus 26:18-20
26:18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
26:19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
26:20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.”
These were just some of the repercussions for the sins of a disobedient Israel. Famine will cause people to do a lot of abhorrent things–especially those without a moral compass.
““Can you think of a circumstance in which it would be a moral thing to eat your own children?”
However, in the right context (ie. as a God-given punishment for Israel’s sins), it would be justifiable amirite.
So let’s say you’ve committed a horrendous sin and God punishes you by telling you that you must eat your own children.”
But He didn’t do that. He simply stated that that would be the inevitable consequences of the cause (His punishments) and effect (desperation) scenario that Israel could have easily avoided.
“But He didn’t do that. He simply stated that that would be the inevitable consequences of the cause (His punishments) and effect (desperation) scenario that Israel could have easily avoided.”
A few objections.
1. He didn’t simply state that it would be the inevitable effect or “consequences of the punishments”, but rather (and I think quite explicitly) that it would BE the punishment: “I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters.” I like how you tried to make it sound less severe by removing it one just step further from God’s actual punishment but unfortunately it amounts to no good argument other than to show how desperate you actually are to cling to your impossible faith.
2. It wouldn’t be unthinkable that God did see such events through particularly as I cannot find anything in the Bible that suggests that it condemns cannibalism as ‘sin’. In fact such a practice, condemnable by modern standards, is reported with remarkable frequency in the OT with little divine objection, for example in 2 Kings 6:28-29; therefore from 1) we certainly have good grounds to assume the worst.
3. Even if I granted you, which I shan’t, that the God did no such thing in the Bible, all other objections presented above would still hold accurate. It’s regrettable that you have made no attempt to answer the question critically other than to parrot in your conviction that “God wouldn’t ask of such a thing”. But clearly such things are not unheard of in the Bible — God did ask Abraham to kill Isaac as a test of faith in Genesis 22:8, and see also Judges 11:30-40. Your simple answer that “God wouldn’t do it” just goes on to show, I think, that even Christianity’s barbaric vision of an almighty creator might still falter before humanity’s renewed standard of morality of which both you and I are now happily (albeit circumstantially) in possession.
“I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters.”
Yes and that means that when God causesthe earth to not yield for them like it once did He is in essence creating the cause and effect scenarios that follow. He’s making it clear to them in advance the tragedies that would follow would not be coincidence, but would be a result of punishment. It is obvious that God is not saying that he will possess the minds of the Israelites so that they will eat their children because of hunger, nor is he “commanding” them to do so as you put it.
That’s a common sense analysis of what is being said.
I don’t think I’ve implied that God would “possess the minds of the Israelites so that they will eat their children”, (though I wouldn’t be surprised if he did — granted of course that he exists) but it is clear from the verses quoted above that God would deal such a punishment on them that would directly conduce to a state of cannibalism. In fact, certain verses make it clear that to create such a state of cannibalism is one of the primary objects of God’s intent. To command is “to make someone do something” and God stated clearly his INTENT which was to create a state in which cannibalism was the inevitable outcome. If I hired a contract killer to assassinate someone you might say I shan’t be held responsible for that person’s death as it involved an intermediary party and I didn’t pull the trigger myself per se, but naturally it was my intent and my actions worked around that intent that directly conduced to its occurrence. God affirmatively intended the condition of cannibalism to fall upon Israel and no beating around the bush will change this fact.
This brings me to my point. I listed this example simply as one amongst many in order to demonstrate one of the many morally dubious acts which God has commanded or was clearly willing to command in the OT. Regardless of intent, whether God actually carried out his threats of cannibalism is a point which you might be interested in contending. But I imagine that if he did see to it that certain people did become cannibals we would still be having this same discussion in which you try to justify it by saying that “because they sinned so God was justified in punishing them”, and even if righteously contended (that God did no such thing) the fact that he was willing to take this measure is not changed, and the moral dilemma still remains unanswered. Perhaps we will waste less time if you addressed the Abraham question, because God did ask Abraham to kill Isaac, and Abraham was willing to see it through. Perhaps this example would be more relevant to the issue at hand: IF God came to you in the manner that he came to Abraham and asked you to kill your child, would you do it?
PS: My common sense bailed out when the snake talked.
“PS: My common sense bailed out when the snake talked.”
That’s odd. Compared to creating the whole universe, that is nothing.
Fine, don’t answer my question. Have a nice day.
I probably didn’t answer because it was a question that I had already answered. Repeatedly. God would not ask me that question and if he did, I would know that the voice I’m hearing is not God’s. As I had already mentioned, God tests people in unique ways and I’m sure he knows what we consider to right or wrong depending upon the circumstances. And I had answered your question as a hypothetical question–as that scenario would not even apply to me.
No. What you have repeatedly said is that God would not ask you that question. I have repeatedly acknowledged your position, for example:
“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:”
“It’s regrettable that you have made no attempt to answer the question critically other than to parrot in your conviction that “God wouldn’t ask of such a thing”.”
“Perhaps this example would be more relevant to the issue at hand: IF God came to you **in the manner that he came to Abraham** and asked you to kill your child”
and have replied that your assumption is suspect, firstly considering that he did ask Abraham the very same question, and also by demonstrating that the Bible is littered with similar accounts of divine unpredictability often involving calls to cannibalism or genocide.
“if he did, I would know that the voice I’m hearing is not God’s”. There is something remarkably illogical about this, but it proves my point. Your morality extends beyond the limits imposed by your god, though I don’t think you are quite willing to admit it.
Out of curiosity, under what circumstances is it OK for God to tell Abraham to kill his son? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what this Christian message of love is all about.
Fact:
1) God have ORDER Abraham to slaughter his son.
2) Abraham take a knife with consent of his son and SLAUGHTER his son, (apparently his son are being replace by lamb)
3) Life and death of a person are DEPEND on God.
4) Whisper of something bad (killing, etc), doesn’t necessary from God.
5) God ORDER not to kill based on 6th commandment – “You shall not murder.”
6) Hell is the most terrible place that ever existed.
To answer the question must based on fact.
So to answer first question:
1) Murder is condemn by religion based on 6th commandment.
2nd Q,
2) For Abraham cases; it one-time deal, apparently his son are being replace by lamb. As God, why He can’t ORDER such a thing? I thought He can do anything.
3rd Q-
Would I do it?
I never see God, never communicate with Him, how I do know He is true or not. If He is impostor, so I breaking his command “You shall not murder”.
So, the right question is – How to know God is true or not.
Maybe a hypothetical scenario will make it easier to understand:
A man walks up to you and says that he is “all powerful” and “all knowing.” You assume that he is insane, but you decide to humor him anyway by listening to his claims. He then tells you that he can prove it to you by asking you to jump into the air–promising that he’ll make you float into the air as proof of his power. Because of a serious injury you sustained in the past, you are unable to jump up because that would only aggravate the pain and injury to your body. You simply walk away as you know that this man is deluded because someone who truly “knows all” would have known about your injury and would have never asked you to “jump” as part of his proof that he is “all powerful.”
An “all knowing” man would have known about your injury. An “all knowing” God would have known about my unwillingness to kill an innocent human being under any circumstance.
Thanks for your explanation, though I am not convinced by it. An all-loving God would never order such an brutal act as a test of faith (says my sense of morality). He would make example out of kindness, not keep men in this seeming loop of barbarism and ignorance. For example, here’s a test of faith I could sympathise with: “Go and love your son, Isaac, and care for him, and stop this goat-burning nonsense.”
I see what you mean, but a father’s love for his son is not a “test of faith;” it’s a natural instinct. One can go on forever with infinite alternative scenarios, but what is the point?
The point is that I would never defend a bully god who goes around telling people to kill their children, or to go on killing sprees, or to give him burnt offerings. You would. I would never defend a book in which heresy, apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death, that slavery is condoned, that ‘eating your own children’ is endorsed as one of god’s punishments and defended by its dogmatists as justifiable under given circumstances. You would. I would never find moral a theology which teaches people they would burn in hell for their failure to obey God, that teaches children they are born depraved and sinful. You would.
No moral person should be a Christian. Q.E.D.
Being an evolutionist, you should be able to understand that even God “evolves.” A different agenda and approach as the New replaces the Old.
Nice try.
No.
God “evolves”? Sigh…
@hifzan shafiee: Sorry for not having addressed your earlier post, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I completely overlooked it.
Yes, you’ve raised a good point. Everything I’ve said is conditional upon the truth of the premise that the Christian God exists, and that the Bible can be taken as fact. Naturally, I believe that the contrary is true. But can I add that EVEN if Christianity were true, I would NOT harm my own child if God ordered me to. I think it is a wicked thing to ask of anyone (I wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemies, but God does it without remorse), and the fact that God committed many similar atrocities in the Bible just goes to prove how man-made and immoral the “holy” book actually is.
The answer to your question lies in Hebrews 11:17-19: “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.” God did not desire Abraham to kill his son, he wanted to know if He trusted Him and His promises, which Abraham did. Because Abraham had a personal relationship with God, and knew that He was real, and God had promised that through Isaac, God would raise up a nation (Israel), and through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed, he said yes. But he did so only because He knew God was real, and knew that even if God had him carry through with the act (which God didn’t), He knew that God would raise His son from the dead, because He knew that God was a faithful, trustworthy, promise-keeping God.
I’m curious Tim – are you an avid reader of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, or the like? So far, I haven’t found any original thoughts on your blog, only regurgitations of what those authors have previously written… let me know!
I’m sorry you feel I regurgtitate. Though more importantly I am not satisfied by the answer in Hebrews 11:17-19. How ridiculous.
Hey Abraham, can you just slit your son’s throat for a sec. Just for a sec, I’ll respawn him, I promise! I just want to see if you trust me! Nah, nah, I don’t really want your son dead — just hold that knife there by his neck, YES, that’s it! NOW, SLASH HIS THROAT! GO! — Wait, STOP! There I believe you. Well done.
That’s it. I’m honestly fucking furious. Pardon my humanity.
How else would you test a person’s faith? Ask them to do something that’s easy? Something that they’re already willing to do, perhaps?
He’s God isn’t He? I’m sure He’ll figure something out THAT ISN’T BARBARIC.
Wait, no, the Bible was written by barbaric men. That explains it.
I would like to raise a few others fact:
By the way, I not Christian but Abraham is a part of my believe (even story is quite different). I believe I should clarify the idea of Abraham slaughtering his son.
“If God order me to kill my son, did I do it”? Really – it was a tough question.
In history of mankind, many people do it. To say it was impossible, it was a rubbish. Many people do kill his family for power, throne, land, woman, food, laws, abortion and of course religion too.
Because we in theology discussion, I hope we maintain our positive/ open minded.
If, in logic basis, no one will kill their son. In Abraham cases, this is out of logic, because it was an order from God. To understand it, we should analyze the God. Did really God order Abraham?
Logic answer – No one know. if God really command it, Yes, it was Abraham is in right position. If there was no God, then Abraham is hallucinating. As a person that believe in God, I will take Abraham in right position.
1) Everyone die.
2) God take the life of a person. In earthly understanding, we called it death.
3) Everyone die in a different way, but the important is everyone WILL DIE. Some so horrible, so die in the bed, so by poison, some by disease.
4) There were many natural disaster such as hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, etc.
By 4 fact above about death, I believe God did order Abraham to do it. The death of human is depend on God. In eye of God, how death will come is second criteria. The important from His view, the order must be accomplish.
Sorry, my view may different from Christianity because I like to look on reality to understand God.
In Abraham cases, God have replace Abraham’s son with lamb. For me, even God have order it, He have showing His mercy by replacing with lamb.
So, for me, not much issue on this cases. It was one time deal and no more similar rules applied for others human in term of “killing his only son”.
did God let Abraham slit Isaac’s throat?
regarding OT violence, you may wanna read through this link Tim
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/joshua6.php