"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country."
- Maximilien Robespierre
What if I said the following?
"God's righteousness is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of His righteousness which includes all honesty and virtue, applied perfectly according to His will."
What is the difference between these two statements?
The first statement is widely acknowledged as the creed of a madman. We recognize that abject terror, even in the service of admirable goals, is not at all admirable, but grounds for condemnation and repudiation.
Yet the second statement is widely espoused as a tenet of Christian dogma. What humanity would do, we consider abuse - but when a god does it, it is permissible.
Was Robespierre right to order thousands killed for the interests of the state? Can your God be called good if the result of said God's "righteousness" is the torment of billions?
Robespierre killed for the glory of the state and for himself, and he is labeled a narcissist and a cruel, sick man. Christians claims that their God kills and condemns for His own glory, yet they worship Him.
Divine command morality leads to this state of affairs: history's most notorious villains and the god of the Bible are indistinguishable.
Jesus Eclipsed: Part 3
1 hour ago