my challenge to Henry B. Smith Jr. of biblearchaeology.org

After perusing Henry B. Smith Jr's attempts to deny that the Pentateuch has God ordering the Hebrews to commit genocide, I emailed the following challenge to him:




This was Mr. Smith's reply:




--------------------------------

First, my argument was simple:  How can the Copan/Flannagan thesis of "dispossession only" make God look morally superior to the popular "literal genocide" thesis adopted by so many conservative Christian scholars, when to flee the promised land was to end up arriving in inhospitable waterless land that would surely cause Amalekite children's deaths to be prolong with the suffering of hunger and thirst?  Wouldn't a war of absolute genocide have been the lesser of the two evils to inflict on Amalekite children?

Second, Mr. Smith says he suspects that his dialoging with me about this subject nwould result in endless back and forth, but why should this bother an apologist, who surely knows that Christianity itself is nothing but one big collection of ceaseless back and forth in-house debates about God's allegedly perspicuous word?  Why would Smith take the strong fundamentalist stance he does on his publicly accessible website?  Does he think his arguments are so conclusive that any back and forth arises solely from the willful ignorance of the atheist choosing to debate him?

Third, how else could I have worded my specific challenge so that Mr. Smith wouldn't think it likely to result in endless back and forth?  Should I have said the bible doesn't exist?  Would he have felt comfortable believing debating that proposition with me wouldn't result in too much back and forth?

Fourth, why did Mr. Smith bring up his belief that my denial of God's existence leaves me no justifiable grounds for my moral arguments?  What does an atheist's ability to ground their moral beliefs, have to do with the biblical data which indicate God's intent to dispossess the Canaanites would have caused more suffering to the Canaanites than a quick death on the battlefield?

Smith seems to be arguing that if I am an atheist, then I can have no reasonable or rationally justified moral objection to ancient tribes who force others to die slowly from starvation, thirst and exposure.

I think Smith has misunderstood the point of my argument:   When one takes the geographical realities into account (at least those involved in Saul dispossessing the Amalekites in the particular circumstances at play in 1st Samuel 15, God's "allowing" them to flee to outside the borders of the promised land would be to "allow" them to live in waterless desert regions already inhospitable to life, and to there endure threats from existing pagans who previously snapped up the few places that had water or vegetation.

So the apologists who think the Copan/Flannagan "dispossession only" thesis successfully defends God from the charge of being a moral monster, only think so because they never thought about what fleeing to outside the borders of the promised land would entail.

To dispossess the Canaanites in the circumstances described in the bible, is to send them running for their lives, leaving behind most of their food and water and farmland and cattle, and end up forcing them and their kids to live in territory that is far more inhospitable to life, whose few areas of vegetation/water would already be jealously claimed and guarded by other pagans who had previously been "dispossessed" by the Israelites.

Mr. Smith will have to excuse me if I believe I have good grounds for saying that his alleged fear that the conversation would result in endless "back and forth" was a bullshit excuse, and his real problem was a genuine fear that he cannot refute my argument that the "dispossession, kill only those who stay behind and fight" thesis makes God to be a more sadistic monster than the thesis that God ordered absolute genocide.

As far as my ability as an atheist to justify my moral belief that causing children to die slowly is a greater immorality than just killing them immediately, that is the belief held by Copan/Flannagan and their followers.  I'm merely pointing out that the Copan/Flannagan thesis ironically has God desiring the kind of result that these modern Christians themselves would have to agree involves more suffering of children than the quick death required under the absolute genocide thesis.

If Christians don't like the idea of their God commanding the immediate death of children, they likely think God would be more cruel if he wanted to force those pagan kids into circumstances that would prolong their suffering from starvation and thirst.

Since the moral problem detected by Copan and Flannagan is only exacerbated by their "dispossession" thesis, that is sufficient to critique them for it.  Exactly how an atheist could justify the moral belief that causing children to suffer is immoral, is utterly irrelevant.  I do nothing more than point out the irony that Copan and Flannagan's efforts to make god less brutish, ironically achieve the very opposite.   Such scholars would suffer defeat under that critique even if we assume atheism cannot allow rational justification for any moral viewpoint.

Cold Case Christianity: Why You Don't Have a Duty to Be A Christian Case Maker

This is my reply to a video by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Why You Have a Duty to Be A Christian Case Maker (Video)

Posted: 03 Oct 2017 01:32 AM PDT

Aaron Klemm from Summit Ministries in Colorado talks with J. Warner Wallace about the evidential nature of Christianity in this edition of the Summit Forum. J. Warner describes why every Christian has a duty to make the case for what he or she believes. For more information about the incredible two-week worldview conferences offered by Summit Ministries (J. Warner is a member of the faculty there), please visit the Summit website. To sign up for the next Summit Forum, visit the Forum Page at Summit Worldview Conference.

Some would argue that it is not by reason of coincidence that Wallace's position here just happens to also work toward the goal of convincing you to purchase his gimmicks.

First, Jesus never taught that all of his followers have to go around making the case for the gospel, or disproving the objections of critics, and we see nothing of the sort in any of the 4 gospels.  Yes, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for falsely interpreting the scriptures and for being hypocrites, but while the same can be safely inferred about first century pagans, nobody in the gospels is bothering to refute and rebuke the pagan criticisms of Jesus or his beliefs.

Second, Jesus charged his followers to teach the Gentiles to obey his original teachings, Matthew 28:20.  You can do that quite easily without needing to defend your beliefs from skeptical attacks.  Most Catholic and Protestant churches teach Jesus' stuff to billions of people every year without explaining how it is that some skeptical attack is faulty.

Third, Jesus charged his immediate followers to be his "witnesses", Acts 1:8, and according to the context, to be Jesus' witness meant to preach the gospel and declare that one had seen the risen Christ for oneself, it did not require one to study the arguments of the gainsayers and provide any type of informed rebuttal remarks, Acts 2:32,  3:15,  5:31, 10:39, etc.  The choice of Paul and others to get into long debates with Christianity's most obvious critics, the orthodox Jews (Acts 18:4), Apollos refuting the Jews in public (18:8) and Paul disputing with pagan critics (Tyrannus, Acts 19:9), only shows what was true about them, it does not provide a contetxual basis for taking the "witnesses to me" in 1:8 as requiring all Christians to conduct their witness the exact same way the men most focused on in the NT happened to do t.

Fourth, anything found in the pastorals is written to church leaders.  So the exhortion for Timothy to reprove and rebuke others (2nd Tim. 4:1ff) is made to a Christian leader, leaving open sufficient room to legitimately dispute whether all that is required of leaders is required of the laity.

Fifth, nothing in the context of 2nd Timothy 4 requires that Timothy know about the arguments of unbelievers/critics and to rebut them on the merits.  In the immediate context, everybody worthy of reproof or rebuttal would be a church-member.

Sixth, Paul characterizes Timothy's need to reprove and rebuke with all patience and teaching, as the work of an "evangelist" (4:5), but Paul also believed there were different types of ministry work:

 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (1 Cor. 12:4-11 NAU)

And in the same chapter Paul denied that individual Christians had a duty to manifest each of the different ministry styles:

 27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way. (1 Cor. 12:27-31 NAU) 

Seventh, Paul's admission that he tears down speculations and anything which exalts itself against the knowledge of God (2nd Cor. 10:5) arises from an immediate context that makes it clear he is limiting his remarks to issues of church discipline (v. 6-8).

Eighth, Jude's famous remark in v. 3 about contending earnestly for the faith, is made in a context of a complaint that many false teachers/converts have entered the fold and corrupted it (v. 4, 12), these were people who caused church divisions (v. 19).  Jude 3 is not authorization to spend your money on scholarly books refuting Christianity so you can be prepared to answer informed criticisms.

Ninth, Peter's famous remark that Christians should be ready always to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for the Christian hope, and to do so with gentleness and respect (1st Peter 3:15) likely has reference to defending the faith to outsiders, but even so, one can make a defense without needing to reply to the rebuttal materials submitted by the gainsayers.  And in context, it is a defense to those who ask a reason for the hope that lies within you...so those who think this also applies even in cases where the unbeliever hasn't asked a reason for the hope that lies within you, are the ones who have the burden of proof to show this more broad interpretation is what Peter meant.

While one might be justified to say the bible allows for Christians to be case-makers if they so chose, there is certainly nothing in the bible that places a "duty" upon them to minister this way.

Hence, Wallace's subtle intent to make Christians believe they have a "duty" to purchase his marketing gimmicks, fails.