This is my reply to an Apologetics Press article by Dr. Dave Miller, entitled
Skeptics and atheists have been critical of the Bible’s
portrayal of God ordering the death of entire populations—including women and
children.
Because the more infinite god is, the more options he has to solve sin problems without needing to inflict misery. If limited sinners, can solve sin problems without mass slaughter, so can "god".
Appeals to
ripple-effect and
chaos theory might help you save face, but foists not the least bit of intellectual obligation upon the person criticizing the bible's divine atrocities. Hence appeal to such wishful speculations do not perform the function of making your fundamentalist position more reasonable than the position of a person who appeals to other dimensions
to explain Bigfoot's uncanny ability to evade most attempts at detection.
For example, God instructed Saul through the prophet Samuel to “go
and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare
them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep,
camel and donkey” (1 Samuel 15:3-4, emp. added). Other examples include the
period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan in which God instructed the people
to exterminate the Canaanite populations that occupied Palestine at the time. However, if one cares
to examine the circumstances and assess the rationale, the Bible consistently
exonerates itself by offering legitimate clarification and explanation to satisfy
the honest searcher of truth.
Ok, where does the bible teach that a person
of infinite power "didn't have any other way" to resolve a sin problem except to inflict horrific misery on children and infants? When we bomb cities in war and cannot avoid killing a few innocent people, it's precisely because we are limited in our power and knowledge. If we have infallible ability to pinpoint where the innocent civilians were and where the guilty enemy combatants were, we would be able to solve the war problem without killing innocent people.
You know, the excuse of imperfection that your infinite god cannot use.
The Hebrew term herem found, for instance, in Joshua 6:17,
refers to the total dedication or giving over of the enemy to God as a
sacrifice involving the extermination of the populace. It is alleged that the
God of the Bible is as barbaric and cruel as any of the pagan gods. But this
assessment is simply not true.
If the critic would take the time to study the Bible and
make an honest evaluation of the principles of God’s justice, wrath, and love,
Which the bible says he cannot do unless he first converts to your religion (1st Cor. 2:14), so you are asking of the critic that which your own theology says is impossible. Sort of like me asking you to lift 5 tons above your head with no other means beyond your personal unaided biological muscular strength.
he would see the perfect and harmonious interplay between them.
That's funny...most Christian scholars don't believe in biblical inerrancy, which means not even most Christian scholars find your fundamentalist "reconciliation scenarios" too convincing. That is, even if I became a Christian, god still might be telling me that the divine atrocities of the OT truly contradict the divine love preached by Jesus.
God’s vengeance
is not like the impulsive, irrational, emotional outbursts of pagan deities or
human beings.
Of course not. For example, when he determined to murder Moses for no specific reason, the wife felt so constrained by the urgent death threat that she used something more dull than a knife, which happened to be nearby, to circumcise her son, the only apparent way God would back the fuck off:
24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.
25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."
26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood "-- because of the circumcision. (Exod. 4:24-26 NAU)
You will insist surely there was a reason God wanted to kill, even if the text doesn't express it, but on the contrary, God specifies that he can be incited to harm people "without cause":
3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause. (Job 2:3 NAU)
Miller continues:
He is infinite in all His attributes and thus perfect in justice,
love, and anger.
Ok, you are a classical theist. But Greg Boyd and other conservative Christian scholars reject classical theism and use the bible to substantiate the opposite doctrine of open-theism (i.e., God is limited and makes mistakes). In other words, the only way I could allow your classical theist presuppositions is if I convert to Christianity and decide that the Christians who advocate for open-theism are wrong.
Not likely. In the text of Genesis 6:6-7, God's regret is not toward the sinfulness of man, even if that was historically true. His regret is toward
his own prior choice to have created man. That is, god is sorry he created man and this means pretty much the same thing the parent means when saying they are sorry they ever chose to have kids. In both cases, one's confession of personal imperfection is clear. Hence I deny any bible verses that extol God's power and wisdom, and refuse to read such classical theist concepts into the biblical wording to make the bible agree with classical theism. The bible's teaching about God's limitations and imperfections cannot be changed merely beaccuse other parts of the bible give a contrary picture.
Therefore I am reasonable to take god at his word, and accept his personal confession of imperfection as the truth about him...and therefore recognize the bible to be full of theological error. As if 2,000 years of Christian theologians attacking each other didn't already do the job.
Just as God’s ultimate and final condemnation of sinners to
eternal punishment will be just and appropriate,
Ok, you aren't challenging skeptics here, you are preaching to the choir. Rock on.
so the temporal judgment of
wicked people in the Old Testament was ethical and fair.
Gee, how easy is it to blindly accept God's perfection in one part of the bible, to justify the conclusion that "surely the judge of the earth will do right" to quell any problems with any other part of the bible? Like I said, preaching to the choir. What you say puts no intellectual compulsion on skeptics, nor highlights any logical fallacies in their criticism of the bible-god.
We human beings do not
have an accurate handle on the gravity of sin and the deplorable nature of evil
and wickedness.
Yes we do. Those who trivialize the moral wrongness of sin aren't expressing any greater cavalier liberalism than God did when he got rid of David's two death-deserving sins of adultery and murder...by simply waiving his magic wand:
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. (2 Sam. 12:13 NAU)
How high is God's standard of justice? Put your diapers on!....
He requires a whole entire RAM to be sacrificed when a master rapes a slave girl, and by that sacrifice, he forgives the rapist completely:
20 'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.
21 'He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.
22 'The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him. (Lev. 19:20-22 NAU)
I therefore soil myself at the thought of the bible-god's infinitely high standard of justice. Clearly, he thinks the person who steals a pack of bubble gum from the corner store has made themselves worthy of eternally irreversible conscious torture by fire.
Human sentimentality is hardly a qualified measuring stick for
divine truth and spiritual reality.
Said the Muslim terrorist to the American mother of three kids. When idiots get it in their head that their god wants them to commit some horrible act, they necessarily become immune to common sense.
How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the
skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical
behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as
an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything
right or wrong.
We don't need any moral to be "absolute" or "objective" in order to remain "reasonable" to foist our subjective morals on others. I am reasonable to conform to my culture's apathy toward racism, even if no absolute morals exist. By conforming to my culture, I make my own life far more pleasant...while contradicting my culture's morals could easily lead to me landing in jail or otherwise making my life miserable.
Acting lawfully in effort to make life enjoyable, by definition, is reasonable.
That logic will not disappear merely because you can carp "who was right, Mother Theresa or Hitler?" The question blindly presumes there is a way to objectively determine who was right, which means the question is begging the question of the existence of objective morals, when whether they exist is precisely the debate.
As the French existentialist philosopher, Sartre, admitted:
“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.... Nor...are we provided
with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior” (1961, p. 485).
He was correct. And due to the power of cultural and environmental conditioning, intelligent mammals are going to make changes in their lives that cause those who mostly agree on morals to band together in villages, cities, states, and nations. A whole bunch of people think raping a child is immoral, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out why such people choose to group together. Yes, very often people are uneducated on moral philosophy and do indeed mistake their ultimately subjective morality for absolute morality, but thankfully, I'm not among them.
The atheist and agnostic have absolutely no platform on which to stand to make
moral or ethical distinctions—except as the result of purely personal taste.
We don't need to ground our personal moral tastes in objective morality before our employment of those tastes to reach our desired goals can be reasonable and rational.
The mere fact that they concede the existence of objective evil is an unwitting
concession there is a God Who has established an absolute framework of moral
judgments.
Then you just encountered a rather extreme roadblock: I'm an atheist, I do
not concede the existence of objective evil. I am horrified at news that somebody slaughtered a schoolyard full of kids...but only because I was raised to adopt and reflect my culture's general morality...by parents who did the same.
Had I been born in 1915 in Germany, I might just as easily have taken the view that jewish kids "deserve" to be killed. Now what are you going to do? Find
fault with a person for growing up to adopt their own culture's morals? Ok, how about if I find "fault" with a man who grew up as a fundamentalist Christian and now thinks adultery is immoral? Informed discussion about morality makes it clear that it is wrong to fault those who reflect the culture they were born and raised into. We can disagree with them all day long, but we err in pretending the "American way" is "better". We can't prove its' better except to shake our fist on Sunday and hear the claps of other people who already agree with us. That doesn't prove the American way is objectively good.
The facts of the matter are that the Canaanites, whom God’s
people were to destroy, were destroyed for their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4;
18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28).
John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School. He is author of The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites" (IVP Academic, 2017). Therein he insists
Proposition # 12: The depiction of the Canaanites In Leviticus and Deuteronomy is a sophisticated appropriation of a common ANE literary device. Not an Indictment.
In other words, on the basis of the case made by Walton and Sandy, my becoming a genuinely born again Christian AND graduating from a Christian college AND conducting extensive review of fundamentalist Christian treatments of the Canaanite problem could easily
still leave me thinking the fundamentalist view is incorrect.
Now if becoming spiritually alive doesn't do anything to help me correctly understand God's justice, I'm not going to think becoming spiritually alive is anything deeper or more significant than a description of a purely naturalistic process.
Miller continues:
Canaanite culture and religion in the
second millennium B.C. were polluted, corrupt, and perverted.
Sorry, you don't have any archaeological evidence that any of them ever practiced bestiality with anywhere near the consistency that fundamentalist apologist typically accuse them of. Instead, you read the ancient and politically biased accounts by the Israelites, and automatically assume these are just as easily understood and reliable as yesterday's headline in the San Francisco Chronicle.
No doubt the people
were physically diseased from their illicit behavior.
The fact that the Israelites were so easily swayed into such idolatry on nearly ever page of the Pentateuch tells me your argument about who 'deserved' to be slaughtered is superficial. If God was correct to slaughter the Canaanites, then since the Israelites were no better, they "deserved" to be slaughtered likewise.
If God could live with the Israelites who were just as bad (James 2:10-11), he could have lived with the Canaanites.
There simply was no
viable solution to their condition except destruction.
Then I apparently know your bible better than you. God could have just waved his magic wand and convinced all Canaanites to do whatever he wanted them to do. See Ezra 1:1.
Their moral depravity
was “full” (Genesis 15:16).
Yup, you aren't addressing skeptics, you are only concerned with the readers who automatically conclude "historically reliable!" every time they read something in the bible. Perhaps that explains why your arguments here give skeptics little reason to worry about anything except their next beer.
They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved
state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be
terminated—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for
years, but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness
(Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).
Nope, Ezra 1:1, God has a non-barbaric way of turning people from the error of their way...therefore his choice to solve the problem in an unnecessarily barbaric way means nothing less than what's implied when a parent puts a bullet in their child's brain to make them stop disobeying. The fact that the parent had other options, is all we need to be reasonable to conclude that parent is evil and guilty. Telling us that God is always a special exception and his ways are mysterious, etc, cannot be viewed as plausible unless and until some hardcore undisputed evidence of his actual existence is brought forward, lest we find ourselves doing nothing more than making excuses for story characters. I'm an atheist. You aren't going to be bringing in any evidence of god's actual existence.
Including the children in the
destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse
condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents and thus face
eternal punishment.
Which is the precise argument I use to prove that abortion is morally good. How could it be morally bad to send a child to heaven
in a way that protects them from the possibility of ending up in hell? Isn't the spiritual perspective (going to heaven) more important than the earthly perspective (unlawful to kill)? When we remember the bible god takes credit for all murders anyway (Deuteronomy 32:29), then we can know it is God who is causing a woman to get an abortion.
So if God cannot do anything morally bad, then is it morally good when God employs his Deut. 32:39 power, yes or no?
When you say God can orchestrate our sinful acts for his own good purposes without himself thereby becoming guilty of sin, you are clearly desperate to grasp at any stupid trifle nobody in their right mind would ever grasp at, to avoid admitting the god of the OT is nothing but an accurate reflection of the barbaric culture that created him. There is no possible reasoning that can justify the argument that you encouraged a person to commit a criminal act, but you yourself bear no moral responsibility for the criminal act. If older brother James encourages younger brother Dennis to steal a candy bar from a store, does James bear any
moral responsibility for this crime, yes or no?
All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible,
are ushered to Paradise and will ultimately reside in Heaven.
Well in any moral analysis, where the
result of the act is morally good, the
act itself was morally good (i.e, healthy kids because you made them eat healthy food).
If the result of the moral act is morally good, you are a fool to say the act itself could nevertheless be immoral, since the good result is precisely the reason to say the act producing the good, was itself good. How do you know feeding kids healthy food is morally good? The result. That's sufficiently objective to make it reasonable for moral relativists to feel their actions morally justified, even if absolute morals don't exist. You will say "this is merely 'the ends justify the means' !", but that doesn't bother me, as ends-justify-the-means is a rather popular moral justification. If I'm starving, I won't just look at somebody else's food and perish away, I'll probably try to get some of it even if I know this is stealing.
Children who have
parents who are evil must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth (e.g.,
Numbers 14:33).
But only because your god chose to refrain from waving his magic Ezra 1:1 wand and causing those evil parents to do whatever he wants.
Those who disagree with God’s annihilation of the wicked in
the Old Testament have the same liberal attitude that has come to prevail in
America just in the last half century. That attitude has typically opposed
capital punishment, as well as the corporal punishment of children.
Then count me out. I'm not fundamentalist Christian, but I'm not a card carrying ACLU radical.
Such people
simply cannot see the rightness of evildoers being punished by execution or
physical pain.
Said the Muslim terrorist leader to his followers when talking about the moral goodness of killing Americans.
Nevertheless, their view is skewed—and the rest of us are being
forced to live with the results of their warped thinking: undisciplined,
out-of-control children are wreaking havoc on our society by perpetrating crime
to historically, all-time high levels.
And like the parent who has the ability to control the kids without killing or brutalizing them, God just sits around refusing to exercise his Ezra 1:1 magic. So God is like the wealthy parent watching their own kids starve, because dad refuses, solely by choice, to withdraw money from the bank to buy food. When you have ability and opportunity to prevent your own created situation from spinning out of moral control, and you don't, the evil that occurs is YOUR fault whether others can be implicated too.
God is no different than the mother with three toddlers who constantly chooses to never guide them, and just lets them run all over hell and back, then bitches about the fact that they exhibit the natural characteristics of unguided children. Or like the mother who never guides her kids by anything more than words. Sorry god, "words" are not enough, thus "the bible says..." is not enough to solve actual real world problems, even if it's enough to dazzle the delights of believers every Sunday.
Those who reject the ethics of God’s destructive activity in
the Old Testament, to be consistent, must reject Jesus and the New Testament.
Nah, plenty of genuinely born again Christians have had severe probelms with the moral contradiction between the OT and NT. I therefore reasonably deduce it is a real problem and not merely a case of somebody lacking spiritual insight.
Over and over again, Jesus and the New Testament writers endorsed and defended
such activity (e.g., Luke 13:1-9; 12:5; 17:29-32; 10:12; Hebrews 10:26-31).
Yup, you aren't arguing to convince skeptics, but only to convince "bible-believers". Dismissed.
The
Bible provides the only logical, sensible, meaningful, consistent explanation
regarding the principles of retribution, punishment, and the conditions under
which physical life may be extinguished.
Yup. We'd all cry if America's ghettos were nuked clean, but I'm sure you'd probably find a bible verses that says nuking the ghettos is the "only way" an infinite god of infinite powers could possibly solve the problem.
Does the bible require Christians to do apologetics? Yes. Does the bible allow them to do the type of apologetics that involves their wrangling of words? No. According to Titus 3:9-11, you don't have interactive dialogue with those who deny Paul's veracity. You "warn" them twicej (warnings don't require dialogue), then you are to have nothing to do with them.
Apparently, Paul placed more restrictions on his followers, than what he allowed for himself. Probably because he felt that apostles had more privileges than non-apostles, or had greater spiritual power so that apostles could play such games with people without being as subject to the temptations of the devil as non-apostles. So I don't care if Paul himself wrangled words, that doesn't automatically imply he wanted his followers to imitate everything he did. Common sense says what the NT directly commands of Christians in general is far more imposing on their conduct, than their more indirect argument that they are allowed to do just whatever they find the apostles doing. Paul also enraged entire cities to the point of his being arrested. Gee, does that mean Paul necessarily wanted his followers to enrage entire cities and get themselves arrested? If you did that, you wouldn't be able to form churches and obey the stuff in the pastorals on church government. The last comment in Acts about how the Romans soldiers allowed Paul to promote, during house arrest, the very things that got him arrested, is absolute fiction.