"The Big IF" - Testing the argument that God can ask us to kill a baby for fun but will never do it

To say we must believe in God to be moral implies that the evil doctrine that "an act is never good in itself but needs a God to approve of it to make it good" is true.
 
It implies that even child murder or child rape, for instance, would be good if God allowed it.

 

The believers say God would never allow it.

 

They mean he hope he won't so they are saying morality is what God wants it to be and that they would reject him if he invented a morality they would not like?  This is not devotion.  Their God-talk is self-serving.

 

And if John feels God wants babies safe, he has no right to argue that God might be validating that same morality for Hansel.  Hansel might have the right to cannibalise babies.

 

So they lie to us that their God would not command such horrors. 

 

But that is beside the point. They are trying to get away from that little big word IF. What if hypothetically speaking he did? What if he did more than allow it but commanded it?
 
Suppose you have a Hobson's Choice. You have to hurt the baby because God says so.
 
Getting away from it shows they have no respect for God. At least they seem to have some respect for the baby! Hypothetical or not though, adoring a God who would never command you to gratuitously hurt a child but who expects you to approve if he should so choose to, still says something about the kind of person you are.

 

Love is all about wellbeing but what if hypothetically you had to kill God so that somebody might live? Love for God cannot mean you want him to exist no matter what.  Putting God first is evil.

No Copyright