Posted on 03/10/2015 9:58:57 AM PDT by Gamecock
One of the most common objections to biblical authority is that the God of the Bible is guilty of committing immoral acts. God appears to advocate, endorse, and even commit acts that are normally seen as morally questionable. The classic example is the command to the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites as they enter into the promised land.
In fact, it is the question of whether God endorses genocide that features heavily in the objections of atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion (Mariner Books, 2008). It is also a prominent theme in Peter Enns’ book, The Bible Tells Me So (HarperOne, 2014). See my review of Enns here.
For these reasons, I am thankful for the good work of Dick Belcher, the John D. and Francis M. Gwin Professor of Old Testament here at RTS Charlotte. Dr. Belcher has recently published important commentaries on book such as Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and has a wonderful book on Christ in the Pslams: The Messiah and the Psalms (Christian Focus, 2006).
Dr. Belcher recently did an interview on whether God is a moral monster with AP Magazine, an evangelical, Reformed publication out of Australia. Here are some excerpts:
Critics of the Bible claim that it contains so many obscene and cruel stories that it can hardly be the work of a holy and righteous God. Do they have a point?
Obviously, this is a pressing issue today. In the past people who have had moral problems with the Bible have said, “Well, the Bible contains some stories and practices that are offensive to many people and this undermines its authority”. But today some of the more passionate atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have gone a step further and said, “the Bible’s views on morality are dangerous”. This represents a change in the way that people are viewing the Bible. They are not simply saying that it is wrong; they are claiming that it is evil. Moreover, they go a step further and suggest that the teaching of the Bible should not even be tolerated; instead, it should be rejected as “hateful”. In response, I would point out that when the Bible describes an event it does not mean that it necessarily condones it. The Bible paints an honest picture about the fallen world and it certainly includes some confronting stories. However, the inclusion of some of these stories does not mean that God approves the actions of their characters. On the contrary, they are often condemned. What we need to understand is that God is able to use these stories in ways that further His purposes by teaching us things we need to know about Him, ourselves and His grace towards sinners.
When God brings judgment on people such as Pharaoh or the Canaanites is He being malicious, or does He have some other purpose in view?
In most of these situations, God’s first response is not judgment. Even in a case like Sodom and Gomorrah, God comes first to Abraham to reveal His plans to him. Abraham pleads with God, and God is willing to save the cities if there are 10 righteous people in them. So we see that God’s first response is not one of judgment. Usually God’s judgment comes after an extended period where people refuse to change, and evil reaches epidemic proportions. God is always slow to execute judgment. In Genesis 15 we discover that God reveals that He will not punish the Amorites for at least four generations, which in those times equated to over four centuries. I don’t think that anyone could argue that God acted capriciously and was not long-suffering and just in executing His judgments. In fact, I think that most of us would be thankful that God is so forbearing and merciful in the way He executes justice. I think we all need to pause and remember that the God of the Bible is holy and we are sinners. We deserve nothing from Him, and that’s the part of the equation we don’t understand today. If we did we would soon realise how merciful and gracious God is when He exercises such restraint towards us.
A lot of people take offence at God’s command to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. What do we know about the Canaanites? Did they deserve it?
That’s the way this issue is presented sometimes: the poor, innocent Canaanites, minding their own business, and then God pounces on them in judgment and destroys them through the Israelites. Well, as I said earlier, God’s judgment wasn’t His first response. He waited for over four centuries until their evil had reached the upper limit, so to speak. The Canaanites were a people who were very wicked in their behaviour, even engaging in child-sacrifice. They worshiped gods who were lustful, incestuous, and bloodthirsty and the Canaanites became like the gods they worshipped. The goddess of sex and war, Ashtart, was very violent. She decorated herself with suspended heads and hands attached to a girdle. She exalted in brutality and butchery. Of course, the Canaanites also worshipped Baal, who was the god of fertility. One aspect of Baal worship involved the Canaanites engaging in sexual activity as a form of sympathetic magic to induce him to produce fruitfulness for their crops. So it’s a false picture to say that the Canaanites were innocent people minding their own business. They were extremely debauched and wicked people.
How would you answer somebody like Richard Dawkins who says that when God orders the extermination of the Canaanites He is nothing more than a moral monster?
I would answer by reminding him that the Bible says that God is a God of justice. His judgment is simply a manifestation of His justice and righteousness, and if we had a sense of His holiness, our response would be one of fear and reverence because of the holy God that He is. I would also remind him that this judgment upon the Canaanites serves as a warning of the future eschatological judgment that faces us. And I would also add this: God’s command to exterminate theCanaanites is not something that occurs all throughout Old Testament history. It is for a particular period of Israel’s history. It’s not as if Israel participated all throughout her history in this kind of activity. It was for a particular purpose in a limited period of her history. Further, it was confined to the time when she entered Canaan to take possession of it for herself so as to fulfil God’s purpose for her. Now there were times when Israel engaged in physical warfare – holy war – but many times that was defensive. So this is a strictly limited period during Israel’s existence, and we should not think of Israel participating in this kind of activity all throughout her history. To suggest otherwise is wrong.
To read the whole interview, go here.
Well, yes it will!
Why do atheists even care about the Bible? Be the good parts or the bad? Doesn't a Bible infer a deity? Atheists don't believe in deities. So why the PMS?
Ok, I must be missing something...
5.56mm
The modern atheist doesn’t believe in God, and hates Him.
The modern atheist doesn’t believe in God, and hates Him.
Speaking as a person who spent 30 years in the wilderness of atheism before returning to faith at 50, I always defined it thus: small “a”theists did not believe in anything greater than themselves, but were not particularly hostile to theists of any flavor. Big “A”theists are hostile to any manifestation of faith in God, but in their arrogance they focus on screaming their defiance at Judeo-Christian faith.
After Adam and Eve sinned and fell God did not destroy man kind.
The plan of salvation was already in the mind of God even before the foundations of this world.
The bible tells us about Jesus Christ, Behold the lamb that was slain before the foundations of the world.
The flesh became so corrupt in the earth that there was only 8 left on earth who’s DNA was not corrupted and tainted by the Nephellium.
God did not did not send to flood to destroy mankind, those whom’s flesh was still pure human DNA.
But God sent the flood to destroy those humans, the part of mankind who’s flesh was corrupted and tainted by Nephellium DNA.
God’s saved the true humans who was still pure in their DNA by Noah’s Ark.
When Israel went into the Promised Land, they encountered men , peoples who looked human, but were not.
Some of these peoples were even Giants, Nephelium.
Not all Nephellium were giants, but all the giants were Nephellium.
The Canaanites, and all the rest that Joshua and Israel defeated by the command of God were Nephellium, their DNA were tainted by the fallen angels.
These peoples were demons, fallen angels who’s DNA mixed with human DNA, the Nephellium.
Go read Geneses 6.
Many things start to make sense and fit to get her in the bible if you view it from looking through the lens that there were and still are Nephellium on the earth.
Dawkins, and all atheists similar view, is internally coherent. As a materialist, atheist he affirms that only space and matter exists. So, does he affirm that objective, moral truth exists, and, if so, what matter is it made of. In Dawkins world nonmaterial entities do not exist. So, logically, can he make the case. The other problem is that in his worldview, logic, itself, cannot exist. So how does he make the case.
To quote Dawkins, only 'pitiless, mindless, matter' exists. So, in his worldview there can be no objective moral truth, and he cannot even begin to make his case without being incoherent.
So, it seems, Dawkins opinion is only that,....an opinion.
Satan?
Oh, I know, bu that doesn’t mean much to atheists when they don’t believe in hell at all.
Believe me, I’m trying my best to get my brother to believe! It’s a hard road so far.
The “argument” of atheists generally boils down to snarky rhetoric. God grants them permission to refuse. God doesn’t grant an excuse from the consequences, which will add up to more and more obvious degrees of a “hell on earth.” What makes them so certain they can come up with something that is not far worse than the worst follies known to existing world faiths of any kind, let alone Christian?
C. S. Lewis traced how various major world faiths tended to have a high degree of moral agreement even while having starkly different theologies, in his book “The Abolition Of Man.”
It isn’t easy sharing with some people even who will ultimately believe. You’ll get pointless push backs which come from the serpent’s influence through original sin. Be patient because “but for the grace of God go we.” One interesting constant factor is that of how we deal with others, that is how God will deal with us. If we are mean, tight, and critical then we will see a mean, tight, and critical God. Maybe, I would tell the atheist, God seems mean because you want to be mean too.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.