Daniel Jennings recent Agora article, I am not a Christian because I am a moral person, is bunk.

First, he assumes he’s a moral person, which is obviously not exactly convincing since the great majority of people reading don’t have any idea who he is, so it’s not like we can simply say “yeah, I guess he is”. Besides, most people aren’t as moral as they think they are, and often do things that are generally considered immoral. For example, Daniel Jennings seems to use a computer. If so, how can he consider himself moral while millions of people are starving all over the world and perishing everyday? Wouldn’t the money used to purchase his computer (or any other luxury he may have) be better spent by a “moral person” on helping the poor as best they can? Does a computer (or other luxury) take precedence over someone starving to death a few hundred miles away?

Perhaps Daniel Jennings does take his moral convictions that far (in accordance with Peter Singer), but I’m guessing he probably doesn’t.

Second, the majority of his article is a strawman, simply setting up “God” (as he says) in a way that isn’t favorable to his own view, even though obviously every single Christian on earth would disagree with his portrayal of God. After all, the one underlying principle that one can hear in just about any church they walk into is that “God is love” or something along those lines. Christians worship a loving God (which would be moral). .

Third, and most importantly, his argument simply doesn’t follow. (a) “believing” in such a God doesn’t mean you endorse or/and approve of it’s behavior, so that simply doesn’t follow. We believe in all kinds of things (serial rapists) without endorsing their behavior. (b) Worshiping such a God doesn’t mean you endorse all of their behavior either. A lot of Christians don’t endorse a lot of what they think God does, but it doesn’t follow they shouldn’t worship him. Worship means to show reverence for, and reverence, in general, means to show respect for something/someone. By worshiping God one can be doing so because he is the ruler of the universe, a lot stronger, all-knowing, or a host of other factors, as long as one does so out of respect for the being (and one can easily respect a cruel being/person).

Fourth, his final paragraph is rather silly. I doubt anyone on earth wants him to be a Christian if he doesn’t believe in God. Plus, most people are hypocrites at one time or another.

Overall, if Jennings is to make his case he has to provide some reliable inference from believing/worshiping God to the conclusion that that would make him immoral. He has yet to do so.

-DM-

[Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding I Am Not a Christian Because I Am a Moral Person by Daniel G. Jennings. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

If using a computer is immoral this poster obviously is immoral. He or she is using one too. Now as to starvation. Since almost all of the starvation in the world is deliberatley caused by various political regimes (Such as Kim Pong Yi and his Communist goon squad in North Korea) My decision not to use a computer wouldn't save a single life. So it has little reflection on morality.
I must say it is wrong to worship something evil. The Gods we worship show our true personality. If we worship Gods that kill, steal, etc. or endorse such behavior. We are approving of such henious acts.

"If using a computer is immoral this poster obviously is immoral. He or she is using one too."

-This is an obvious fallacy, not to mention the poster never said whether they were moral or not (or to what degree). Jennings claimed to be very moral.

"Now as to starvation. Since almost all of the starvation in the world is deliberatley caused by various political regimes (Such as Kim Pong Yi and his Communist goon squad in North Korea) My decision not to use a computer wouldn't save a single life. So it has little reflection on morality."

-This is a rather unusual argument (if one can call it that). Even if one can argue that "almost all of the starvation in the world is deliberately caused by various political regimes" (whcih is obviously isn't; one can easily donate money to people, especially in the US, Australia, African states, Southern America, etc., to help relieve their suffering), it still misses the point. The point is by using the computer one is using a LUXURY at the expense of another SUFFERING/DYING. One can use many examples other than starvation. Regardless, the posters decision not to use a computer and spend that money (along with the money they use for other luxuries) could easily save at least one life. Most organizations can feed people for a whole year with a very small amount of money (donations as low as 20 dollars a month or less). As long as the poster is using their computer (or any other luxury), while claiming to be a highly moral person, they are a hypocrite (as well as immoral). Money spent on a computer, play station, x-box, bmw, etc., can be much better spent, assuming the person is moral, on others who are starving all over the world (or in some other way suffering).

"I must say it is wrong to worship something evil. The Gods we worship show our true personality. If we worship Gods that kill, steal, etc. or endorse such behavior. We are approving of such henious acts."

-The poster obviously misses the overall point. They first beg the question by assuming the "something" is evil. Second, they use the word "wrong" in an unusual sense. Is it morally wrong to worship something evil? Why do the Gods we worship show our true personality?
The poster, in short, begs the question and doesn't respond to the previous poster. Their statement: If we worship Gods that kill, steal, etc. or endorse such behavior (I assume they are arguing we endorse such behavior), just asserts, without argument, what is up for debate, and thus the post is without any meat, just bones.