Part of the reason I decided to do a commentary on the book God or Godless? is because the atheist does such a bad job. Here is part 4.
God commands child sacrifice. And with the Bible as my source, this basically cannot be denied. But only the Christian seems to get the significance of this: we are offered a “trilemma”, only two of the three following statements can be true, so you must reject one:
- Yahweh is God (and therefore morally perfect)
- The devotional killing of infants is not always wrong
- The biblical passages in which Yahweh approves the devotional killing of infants and children are correctly interpreted and inerrant
Christians accept 1 by definition. So it’s between 2 and 3. And our resident Christian rejects 3. Somewhere along the line these passages were either misinterpreted or, in fact, errant. This is shaky ground, and I am glad that the atheists pull the Christian up on this: if some of it is errant, why not most of it, or even all of it?
To me, this is the one time the atheist really got the jugular of this Christian: if you can doubt bits of it for no greater reason that you don’t like it you can quickly dismiss the whole book. What concept of God are you left with after that?
But that is not what I want to ask. I don’t know why perfect morality is so strongly ingrained into the definition of a God. I can’t understand it. The demand for worship and subservience, as a priority over morality, is a contradiction of this morality. I don’t know how this goes so unnoticed, and I don’t see why morality is such a big part of the definition: an evil Creator God is consistent with every argument for God.