What do we do about the big, bad God of the Bible?

From time to time, I’ve heard atheists incorrectly try to refute that a creator God exists because of all the evil and suffering in the world. But as atheist Richard Dawkins says, that’s flawed thinking: “The problem of evil, to me, shouldn’t be a real problem because you just say, ‘Well there’s an evil god,’ and so that’s a lesser question.”

The thornier issue is the question of evil and a God that’s supposedly infinitely benevolent and good. That, as I’m sure you know, has been debated endlessly with lots of both real and digital ink spilled (see my latest discussion on it here).

In that same vein has been the charge of skeptics who demand an explanation for a good God and all the various acts of violence that are recorded in the Bible, some of which God commanded. Dawkins addresses that issue in his book, The God Delusion, by saying he sees God as: “Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Atheist Charles Templeton piles on in his work Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith by writing (pg. 71): “The God of the Old Testament is utterly unlike the God believed in by most practicing Christians … His justice is, by modern standards, outrageous … He is biased, querulous, vindictive, and jealous of his prerogatives.” He’s joined by writer Robert Anton Wilson, who stated: “The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer.”

Admittedly, there are some passages of Scripture that, on the surface, appear to depict God as being pretty ruthless. Take the Flood described in Genesis as one example: “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish” (Gen. 6:17).

Then we have God’s orders to Israel about the land He was giving them and the people who lived there; the Lord told Israel: “You shall utterly destroy them … you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them” (Deut. 7:2; 20:16).

And let’s not forget the overthrow of Jericho “They [Israel] utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword” (Joshua 6:21), and the end of Amalek: “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3).

These and other biblical episodes provoke the creators of evilbible.com to say: “For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so-called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.”

To quote Ace Ventura, “Alrighty then.” So, how do we respond to the supposedly big, bad God of the Bible?

Let me start by saying that in the short space I have here at CP, I can’t provide the extensive reply needed to address everything above in detail. I’ve written a lengthier article on this, which you can read if you’re interested, and for a strong in-depth examination on the topic, please see Dr. Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?

First, the overreaching claim made by some skeptics, like evilbible, of God “promoting,” commanding rape, etc., is way out of bounds. Yes, the Bible mentions rape, incest, polygamy, and other detestable things, but any reader of Scripture needs to understand that the Bible records many things of which it doesn’t approve; describes many things that are not necessarily prescribed.

Hopefully that’s clear, but if you can find a verse that explicitly has God commanding rape, let me know.

Second, when you look at nearly every major episode of God’s judgment falling upon certain peoples in Scripture, a clear pattern emerges.

It begins with God declaring a very rare and grave form of judgment, handed down to stamp out a human kind of cancer. Far from being capricious, the future capital punishment judgment is publicly pronounced in response to extreme sin (e.g., “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave” Gen. 18:20).

Next, God’s terminal judgments are preceded by warnings and/or long periods of exposure to the truth and time to repent. Amalek, for example, was given 400 years by God to repent (Gen. 15:13-16). During the construction of the ark, which lasted at least 100 years, Noah is described as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5) to the people around him.

When it came to Israel’s land conquests, any and all “innocent” adults were often given a path of escape with their families and provided a way to avoid judgment (expulsion from land was the most common judgment, not death). When it comes to sparing the innocent in general, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah for example, Abraham asks if God would dare destroy good people with the bad, and begins to whittle down a hypothetical number of good people left in the city, starting with 50 and ending with 10, asking after each amount if God would still destroy the city if that particular number of good people resided within its walls (Gen. 18).

If the people targeted for judgment repented, God relented, and His wrath was avoided. Cases such as Jonah’s preaching at Nineveh (Jonah 3:10) and even individual cases like King Ahab avoided God’s judgment by repenting (1 Kings 21:27–29).

Lastly, someone is almost always saved (redeemed) from the evil culture God targets (e.g., Lot and his family, Noah and his).

If this pattern of judgment seems familiar to you, it should. It’s the same design found in the New Testament gospel of Christ, which is being played out right now with you and me.

Far from the false caricature painted by critics of being a bloodthirsty and evil deity in the Old Testament, God’s character is consistent in both the Old and New, with it being summed up by Jonah who said: “I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity” (Jonah 4:2).

But even when God’s judgment falls, it does so with a purpose. For example, Isaiah writes, “At night my soul longs for You, indeed, my spirit within me seeks You diligently; for when the earth experiences Your judgments the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness” (Is. 26:9).

It would be nice if we could learn righteousness apart from God’s judgments, and in truth, that’s part of the New Testament Gospel of Christ. We see His righteousness, understand our sin, and look to turn from it out of gratitude for His sacrifice, love, and forgiveness.

“Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3).

This is the first I've read of God commanding the slaughter of innocent animals in retribution for bad behavior.

I understand that God sometimes (like here in 1 Sam. 15:3) had to explicitly command the slaughter of innocent infants - who, after all, willfully rejected God's teachings and refused to repent. (Newborns don't have a soul, and toddlers can sometimes be very obstinent.)

But dumb animals?

The toddlers certainly deserved to be brutally put to death (I wonder: Were they at least given a proper church burial?), but the livestock?!

"O, George! Not the livestock!"

Well, I suppose that we can at least cite Schumacher's excuse proffered here that it was rare, right?

That means that we are justified in ignoring it, right?

Regards,

***The verse shocks you because we are no longer taught what the actual understanding and history is behind those scriptures when God gave that command

the end of Amalek: “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3)***

I think that I can expand understanding on the 'historical context' of this Scripture. First I will state the guiding principle involved and why the Lord demanded such a severe penalty of Saul {which he failed to perform} and why we are paying for that error even today.

I will start in the extra-Scriptural Book of Jubilees. It tells us that as the Flood of Noah subsided, the three brothers, Shem, (C)Ham and Japheth chose how to divide up responsibility for the visible lands. Japheth received the northern regions, Ham chose the southern regions and Shem was delegated the center territories connecting them, what today we might term as 'the Levant'.

Ham's son, Canaan, coveted the central strip of that territory assigned to Shem and seized it for himself, naming it Canaan after himself. Jubilees tells us that Ham was displeased with this usurpation. Much of Biblical history could be explained by this antisocial act, but suffice it to say that a Spiritual conflict was born with this selfish act on the part of Ham's son, a conflict that has grown exponentially over the many ensuing centuries.

The next notable event obtains when Esau, the eldest son of Isaac and the intended one to receive 'the blessing', fell into rebellious disregard of his father's wishes and married into the families of Canaan. This disruption is easily understood as a perversion of God's will for the offspring of Shem.

Esau's first son was Eliphaz, whose name is interpreted to mean "My god is gold", not an encouraging name of righteousness. Eliphaz had a concubine named Timna with whom he had a son named Amalek. Timna is said to have been rejected by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Amalek was considered to be a 'bastard'

Wikipedia says of the etymology of the name: scholars regard the origin of the term, "Amalek" to be unknown but in some rabbinical interpretations, it is etymologized as am lak, 'a people who lick (blood)'. Be that as it may, I see in the name "(H)Amalek" - 'Ham is King' {Ham + melech - 'king'}, a somewhat secret intent.

"Ham is King" directly contradicts God's will that Shem is King, that is, progenitor of King David and thus King Messiah = Christ. That interpretation casts Amalek as the progenitor of antichrist!❗

Wikipedia: As a people, the Amalekites are identified throughout the Hebrew Bible as a recurrent enemy of the Israelites. During the Exodus the Amalekites continually ambush the Israelites {Exodus 17:8–16}. In Deuteronomy 25:17–19, The Israelites are specifically commanded to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven" once they have taken possession of the Promised Land. The Israelites failed in this command.

As already stated here, 1 Samuel 15 commands King Saul to wipe out all vestiges of Amalek. Probably the animals were included in case the animals had been dedicated to idols and their meat might be eaten by someone who would then pick up that spirit and continue the mission of the antichrist spirit. Of course King Saul spared the Amalekite king, Agag, who then defiled a Jewish maiden.

In the Book of Esther we find Haman, identified as an 'Agagite', an offspring of King Agag, an Amalekite. Haman conspires to kill off all of the Israelites, thus cutting off the line of Shem and thus Messiah / Christ.

Herod the Great is identified in the New Testament as 'Idumean', a Latinised form of what we would call 'Edomite'. {Idumeans are believed by some historians as designating Edomites that accepted Jewish beliefs; they did not appear to obey all of the dictates of the Torah.} Still, we can accept that Herod the Great carried the blood of Esau and thus possibly Amalek.

Herod the Great is noted by Christians as having ordered the killing of all the infants in Bethlehem - thus, like Haman in the Book of Esther, attempting to cut off the line of Messiah / Christ for ever.

Wikipedia states: In Judges 3:13, Amalek, and their Moabite and Ammonite allies, defeat Israel so that the Moabites could oppress them. This indicates that the offspring of Amalek allied with other 'Canaanite' tribes to attempt to defeat Israel. I believe that - spiritually - we can expand this to today, to the growth of Islam and its enmity towards Israel and, by extension, Christianity and the ultimate rule of Messiah / Christ.

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.