If Sacrifice is Morally Wrong, Is Christianity Evil?

In the previous post, I proved that Sacrifice was evil. But it comes at a cost since some may think that it implies that Christianity is evil. But it does not.

Even though me eating a hamburger is more important than your life that does not mean that I should not save your life. The point is that I should not be COMPELLED to save your life. Under ANY circumstances. You cannot point a gun to my head and demand money for your sick child and expect me to condone such behavior as moral. It is not. Your intentions or desires are immaterial to me. You must operate on the "trader principle", giving value for value. You work for me and I will pay you and, therefore, your work will save your own life. Notice what Paul said, "Those who do not work shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10)

Giving value for value means that I will give you what you need willingly IN EXCHANGE FOR something I value. I will not sacrifice for you even my hamburger but I will trade you my $1 for your labor power and then you can go and get iodine for your child (or someone else's child).

Similarly, I may feel willing to give you the dollar out of compassion but this is a selfish motive that makes me feel better. Thus, I am giving you a dollar and IN EXCHANGE I am feeling better for myself for doing it.

Immorality comes from the theft. God Himself commands, "Thou shalt not steal". Yet, government taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income. It is no different when the government takes my money to give to some poor person than if the poor person were to rob me directly. All involuntary income redistribution is similar and is immoral. Yet socialism and government funding of programs for the poor in society are nothing more than legalized theft.

Does this mean that the poor should not be assisted? Not at all! It merely means that forcing one group to pay for another is tantamount to theft. When they give it willingly, that is another story.

Christianity (and other great religions) tell us that we should help the poor. The emphasis, however, is that WE should do it. Not that we should DICTATE to others to do it. The problem with most Christians is that they forget that. They go beyond merely suggesting that it is a nice thing to assist the poor or that we ought to be PERSONALLY liable to help the poor and instead suggest that it is the GOVERNMENT'S reponsibility or SOCIETY'S responsibility to do it.

This is nonsensical. When government takes responsibility for something, it negates my personal responsibility. "I gave at the office" or "with my tax dollars" is a legitimate dodge to the question of giving charity. Indeed, the concept of charitable deductions is based on the notion that I can FORCE you to help contribute to the causes that I deem appropriate. Just as taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income, so are tax deductible donations when they are used for charity. You are forcing ME to support your causes.

Since I do not support many of the causes that you support, your taking of tax deductions is theft. Yet it is legalized theft by the government. Just because it is made legal by government fiat, however, does not make it morally correct. The misuse in Christendom to justify such intervention is a wholesale repudiation of core Christian principles. Thus, it is not Christianity that is evil--it is those who seek to impose obligations on others who are.

Finally, let us deal with the notion of objective truth, for this is something that will no doubt arise. Surely there are things which are objectively better than others, you may ask.

There are. However, those things that are objectively better are always objectively better from the standpoint of the observer. Nothing else. It is objectively better for me to have a hamburger than not. It is objectively better for you to have a hamburger than not (assuming that you like hamburgers). Therefore, from my perspective, if there is only one hamburger, it is better for me to have it than you and better from your perspective to have it than me (assuming that neither of us are starving or otherwise have reason to pull on the heartstrings of the other). Notice that objectivity cannot dictate to whom the hamburger will be placed.

We can also the analogy for morality. If both of us need the hamburger to survive and only one can have it and the hamburger (for some unknown reason) cannot be divided, it is impossible to determine objectively with whom the hamburger should be placed, since both parties have an objective claim on it. This is different from moral relativism. I am not stating that morality differs from individual to individual. I am stating that morality is somewhat referential. The sole basis to settle this is to add another principle to the mix that most religions (including Christianity) support: the no theft rule.

Essentially, the "no theft rule" states that no one can use deception or force to take from another. All activities must occur based on the trader principle. The way we determine who gets the hamburger is not by violence or an impartial third party observer but rather by negotiation. There are actually some things for which I would be willing to give up my life and let you have the hamburger but if you fail to give those things to me, I am sorry, but there is no way I'm letting you eat (in this example). Now you may rightly argue that this means both of us will die if we do not negotiate to a solution. To that I would say, "So what?" There are some principles worth dying for including the one that you have no right to use force to take from me. I would rather die (provided I can ensure your death as well) than accept this as a principle (that does not mean that facing a gun I would not retreat from the position: I am not a fool since at that point I lose my life and the principle being defended is not upheld [and I can always get back at you later for your immorality through the jusdicial system--and I will]).

You would be incorrect, however, in suggesting that I would somehow not receive the benefits since, after all, I would be dead after giving you the hamburger. There are many things that would definitely outlive me that, if I could guarantee their outcome (perhaps by requiring you to transfer funds to my wife and children to ensure their longevity PRIOR to my allowing you to solely eat the hamburger) that would be sufficient for me to give up the hamburger.

However, as of right now, I do not see anyone making such an offer. So I will go and eat my hamburger now. Class dismissed.