In other words, a problem of consistency that only worries those who ascribe to bible "inerrancy".
One of the Christian scholars to contribute an article in that book was C. S. Cowles, who wrote the article “The Case for Radical Discontinuity". He emphasizes NT passages which say the Old Covenant was imperfect and is passing away.
Dr. Mariottini has a blog and responded to Cowles, trying to argue under a presumption of biblical inerrancy that there is no inconsistency between the OT God commanding such genocide and the NT God who commands people to love one another.
One of the Christian scholars to contribute an article in that book was C. S. Cowles, who wrote the article “The Case for Radical Discontinuity". He emphasizes NT passages which say the Old Covenant was imperfect and is passing away.
Dr. Mariottini has a blog and responded to Cowles, trying to argue under a presumption of biblical inerrancy that there is no inconsistency between the OT God commanding such genocide and the NT God who commands people to love one another.
I replied to Mariottini, see here. I post the content below in case the good doctor deletes my post:
Barry Jones says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 17, 2020 at 4:25 pm
Dear Dr. Mariottini,Frank Turek and other "apologists" strongly emphasize that objective morality proves god. Turek thus argues that most of humanity recognize rape as immoral, yet atheism cannot account for this pattern of opinion in human history, therefore, god did it. But most people also strongly oppose infanticide (Numbers 31:17, 1st Samuel 15:2-3), and they equally oppose using fire to kill a preteen girl merely for having premarital sex in her father's house (Leviticus 21:9, by having sex in her father's house, she likely still lives there, and thus is likely still unmarried and thus likely not older than about 12).If the collective human condemnation of rape proves God, why shouldn't we extend Turek's logic and similarly presume that because it is the Holy Spirit who convinces everybody that rape is absolutely immoral, it is also the Holy Spirit who convinces everybody that infanticide and burning children to death are absolutely immoral?By what criteria do we decide when collective human moral opinion ultimately stems from the Holy Spirit, and when it doesn't?Sure, that would have the effect of proving those parts of the bible are not inspired by God, but wouldn't logical consistency be a higher priority than bible inerrancy, given the former is beyond question, while the latter is the subject of endless confusion and disagreement within the Evangelical Christian camp?Or do you think Turk is merely overstating the force of the moral argument for God?
Hello Barry,
ReplyDeletethere is an apologist by the name of luke bruer who thinks that yhwh done the main job of driving out while the hebrews done some of the job.
here is the discussion
https://disqus.com/by/BradleyBowen/comments/
what are your thoughts on this? i remember when f till addressed
Thanks for the reference. You make a good point because the bible distinguishes God's driving out the Canaanites, from the Hebrews driving them out, for example:
DeleteDeut. 7:20 "Moreover, the LORD your God will send the hornet against them, until those who are left and hide themselves from you perish.
12 'Then I sent the hornet before you and it drove out the two kings of the Amorites from before you, but not by your sword or your bow.
Since inerrantists will not accept "God's ways are mysterious" when other Christians use it to get out of a theological jam, the inerrantists are admitting such excuse is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, it can be abused or employed where it us not justified. We skeptics are reasonable to ask how we can know when that excuse is proper, and when it is being abused.
But they provide us no criteria for discerning when the excuse is being abused or when it is being properly employed. Hence, we cannot possibly be unreasonable in viewing their own employment of that excuse as a floating appeal to mystery, anchored to nothing, a cop-out, and dismiss it accordingly. If they cannot come up with the proper criteria to allow us to make an independent judgment on whether that excuse is being employed properly or abused, they cannot blame us when we make that decision for ourselves based on our own level of learning.