God and Biblical Violence

[vardaquinn]

I often get a lot of snide remarks from atheists that the God of “our book” is supposedly very very wicked and evil and should NOT be listened to. They review passages of the Old Testament where God supposedly does evil things (like kill the Egyptians first born sons) and commandments he gives them which are supposedly wrong (like command that adulterers be stoned) and so and so forth.

I have my own ideas about how to respond to this (for instance: atheists try to be Fundamentalists when they read the Bible, and expect that we are just the same) but I was hoping I could find a more detailed explanation of this apparent inconsistency in Biblical teaching.

Thoughts?

 

[Armyvet007]

I often get a lot of snide remarks from atheists that the God of “our book” is supposedly very very wicked and evil and should NOT be listened to. They review passages of the Old Testament where God supposedly does evil things (like kill the Egyptians first born sons) and commandments he gives them which are supposedly wrong (like command that adulterers be stoned) and so and so forth.

I have my own ideas about how to respond to this (for instance: atheists try to be Fundamentalists when they read the Bible, and expect that we are just the same) but I was hoping I could find a more detailed explanation of this apparent inconsistency in Biblical teaching.

Thoughts?

Mcdonalds is an evil [fast food is “bad” after all] cult that engages in ritualistic food preparation [insert reference to the portion of the Mcdonald’s employee handbook dealing with something about food prep here] and ritualistic cleansing [insert reference to the portion of the McDonald’s employee handbook dealing with washing hands after using bathroom here]. Such an evil, evil cult.

That or waste your time explaining the error in using cherry picking [something one would think atheists (or at the “I heart logic” atheists) would already know.]

 

[constantconvert]

I often get a lot of snide remarks from atheists that the God of “our book” is supposedly very very wicked and evil and should NOT be listened to. They review passages of the Old Testament where God supposedly does evil things (like kill the Egyptians first born sons) and commandments he gives them which are supposedly wrong (like command that adulterers be stoned) and so and so forth.

I have my own ideas about how to respond to this (for instance: atheists try to be Fundamentalists when they read the Bible, and expect that we are just the same) but I was hoping I could find a more detailed explanation of this apparent inconsistency in Biblical teaching.

Thoughts?

I think the real question is if they are atheists, how have they come to understand what is evil? Evil is a moral judgement. God is the author of morality. God didn’t create justice, holiness, and love; He IS Justice Holiness and Love. So you might want to ask them where they get the idea that murder is wrong.

Anyway, that’s not what you asked. Most of the time in the OT when someone is stoned, or a village is wiped out, or whatever it is because of sin. Sin brings death. It brought death to Adam and Eve, and it brings us spiritual death today. They may think that it’s unjust, but again, where do they get their idea of what is just? His game, His rules. They may think that it’s cruel to stone an adulterer-- it is! **As abhorrent as those punishments seem to us, that is how our sin seems to God. **Those events are to drive home that point.

 

[constantconvert]

I often get a lot of snide remarks from atheists that the God of “our book” is supposedly very very wicked and evil and should NOT be listened to. They review passages of the Old Testament where God supposedly does evil things (like kill the Egyptians first born sons) and commandments he gives them which are supposedly wrong (like command that adulterers be stoned) and so and so forth.

I have my own ideas about how to respond to this (for instance: atheists try to be Fundamentalists when they read the Bible, and expect that we are just the same) but I was hoping I could find a more detailed explanation of this apparent inconsistency in Biblical teaching.

Thoughts?

I think the real question is if they are atheists, how have they come to understand what is evil? Evil is a moral judgement. God is the author of morality. God didn’t create justice, holiness, and love; He IS Justice Holiness and Love. So you might want to ask them where they get the idea that murder is wrong.

Anyway, that’s not what you asked. Most of the time in the OT when someone is stoned, or a village is wiped out, or whatever it is because of sin. Sin brings death. It brought death to Adam and Eve, and it brings us spiritual death today. They may think that it’s unjust, but again, where do they get their idea of what is just? His game, His rules. They may think that it’s cruel to stone an adulterer-- it is! **As abhorrent as those punishments seem to us, that is how our sin seems to God. **Those events are to drive home that point.

 

[constantconvert]

I often get a lot of snide remarks from atheists that the God of “our book” is supposedly very very wicked and evil and should NOT be listened to. They review passages of the Old Testament where God supposedly does evil things (like kill the Egyptians first born sons) and commandments he gives them which are supposedly wrong (like command that adulterers be stoned) and so and so forth.

I have my own ideas about how to respond to this (for instance: atheists try to be Fundamentalists when they read the Bible, and expect that we are just the same) but I was hoping I could find a more detailed explanation of this apparent inconsistency in Biblical teaching.

Thoughts?

I think the real question is if they are atheists, how have they come to understand what is evil? Evil is a moral judgement. God is the author of morality. God didn’t create justice, holiness, and love; He IS Justice Holiness and Love. So you might want to ask them where they get the idea that murder is wrong.

Anyway, that’s not what you asked. Most of the time in the OT when someone is stoned, or a village is wiped out, or whatever it is because of sin. Sin brings death. It brought death to Adam and Eve, and it brings us spiritual death today. They may think that it’s unjust, but again, where do they get their idea of what is just? His game, His rules. They may think that it’s cruel to stone an adulterer-- it is! **As abhorrent as those punishments seem to us, that is how our sin seems to God. **Those events are to drive home that point.

 

[constantconvert]

Sorry for the multiple posts. CAF was really wonky last night.

 

[Gorgias]

I think the real question is if they are atheists, how have they come to understand what is evil? Evil is a moral judgement. God is the author of morality. God didn’t create justice, holiness, and love; He IS Justice Holiness and Love. So you might want to ask them where they get the idea that murder is wrong.

Was murder wrong in societies that had no contact with Judaism or Christianity? (Not universally, of course, but were there societies that held murder to be wrong?) If so, then morality proceeds from lived experience. (Of course, we’d hold that the lived experience proceeds from our origin from God, and from the creation of God, but they wouldn’t take that step.) So, you wouldn’t get much traction on that approach: the answer you’d likely receive is “it’s based on human experience” (or “social contract”, etc).

 

[constantconvert]

Was murder wrong in societies that had no contact with Judaism or Christianity? (Not universally, of course, but were there societies that held murder to be wrong?) If so, then morality proceeds from lived experience. (Of course, we’d hold that the lived experience proceeds from our origin from God, and from the creation of God, but they wouldn’t take that step.) So, you wouldn’t get much traction on that approach: the answer you’d likely receive is “it’s based on human experience” (or “social contract”, etc).

But social contracts are simply behaviors that people have agreed on. There’s no morality involved. If we have an agreement not to kill each other because we don’t want to die, that’s different from not killing each other because it’s inherently wrong. If we just behave in a certain way because we’ve all agreed upon it, then you can’t say I’m *evil *for killing my brother, I’m just someone who doesn’t agree with the rules people have arbitrarily decided on.

It’s difficult to see because the law of God *is *written on all of our hearts no matter if we believe in Him or not, like those societies that are without God. We have an innate understanding of evil. It’s good to get folks to examine *why *they believe what they believe. instead of trying to convince them God is good, take the opposite position and say, “Hey, that’s just survival of the fittest. A man kills his brother, lions eat zebras, no biggie.” Then let *them *defend morality, at the very least they have to figure out why it’s wrong, social contract not withstanding.

Eventually discussions with these kinds of people come around to "well if it doesn’t hurt anyone it’s OK, but what they don’t see is that there is no such thing as a private sin. All sin hurts the person committing it and hurts humans as a whole. That isn’t written on our hearts, but revealed through the Church, so they don’t get that part.

 

[snarflemike]

I think the real question is if they are atheists, how have they come to understand what is evil? Evil is a moral judgement. God is the author of morality. God didn’t create justice, holiness, and love; He IS Justice Holiness and Love. So you might want to ask them where they get the idea that murder is wrong.

You’re right, although it’s really difficult to get atheists to really explore this question. It just seems so obvious to them (and obvious things are the very things we should examine when dealing with such fundamental questions).

What atheists don’t differentiate is why is it worse for God to command some tribe be killed, than for God to allow death in general? Why was it bad to stone an adulterer but not bad to let that adulterer die of cancer in old age. That at least moves the debate to the more interesting question of why God allows any suffering, much less death, in this life.

 

[snarflemike]

Was murder wrong in societies that had no contact with Judaism or Christianity? (Not universally, of course, but were there societies that held murder to be wrong?) If so, then morality proceeds from lived experience. (Of course, we’d hold that the lived experience proceeds from our origin from God, and from the creation of God, but they wouldn’t take that step.) So, you wouldn’t get much traction on that approach: the answer you’d likely receive is “it’s based on human experience” (or “social contract”, etc).

And yet murder can be quite beneficial to individuals, families and tribes. Their answer is not thought out.

 

[EviPolevhia]

constantconvert, you make it sound like if there was no God then nothing would ever be wrong. I personally don’t require a deity to keep myself from killing but if you think you do then by all means make sure you keep going to church!

 

[snarflemike]

constantconvert, you make it sound like if there was no God then nothing would ever be wrong. I personally don’t require a deity to keep myself from killing but if you think you do then by all means make sure you keep going to church!

If you’re just a clever animal, a walking bag of chemicals, then why shouldn’'t you kill if it benefits you? Other animals do it all the time. Why do you hold yourself to a different standard than chimps or lions or any other creature?

 

[EviPolevhia]

If you’re just a clever animal, a walking bag of chemicals, then why shouldn’'t you kill if it benefits you?

We, as humans, do kill when it benefits us. Wars. Crusades. Every nation and every Religion (except the exceedingly few Pacifist ones) have killed when it benefited them. What is your point?

But if you mean me specifically, I do unto others as I would prefer they do unto me. I don’t go around killing because, you know, the Wild West rather sucked. It’s not a hard concept.

Other animals do it all the time. Why do you hold yourself to a different standard than chimps or lions or any other creature?

Other animals -do and don’t- do it all the time. A pack of wolves doesn’t constantly kill off their own members. They work together because a group/society working together achieves more then the sum of the individual parts. Traveling in school of fish means that each individual fish is much less likely to be eaten then if they were alone.

Animals do kill animals of other species all the time but that’s mostly for food. We kill cows and chickens all the time for food, same thing.

In short, peaceful cooperation yields better results in the majority of cases. Division and subterfuge can benefit only small numbers of individuals and only in a minority of cases. Going around killing willynilly makes zero sense.

Edit: I see you were an Atheist. So you went around slitting throats when you didn’t believe in God, right? Because you were a moral-less heathen?

 

[constantconvert]

constantconvert, you make it sound like if there was no God then nothing would ever be wrong. I personally don’t require a deity to keep myself from killing but if you think you do then by all means make sure you keep going to church!

I didn’t mean to imply that atheists do not have ethics. I’m sure there are many atheists who have a very strong moral code. I was simply encouraging the OP to examine the supposition of the person who claims that murder is wrong. How do they know? And yes, very many nonChristians are better people than I am, I have no doubt.

 

[constantconvert]

constantconvert, you make it sound like if there was no God then nothing would ever be wrong. I personally don’t require a deity to keep myself from killing but if you think you do then by all means make sure you keep going to church!

But you are correct about this aspect of my argument. I am saying that if there was no God there would be no morality, and that the concepts of right and wrong would be absent.

 

[snarflemike]

We, as humans, do kill when it benefits us. Wars. Crusades. Every nation and every Religion (except the exceedingly few Pacifist ones) have killed when it benefited them. What is your point?

But if you mean me specifically, I do unto others as I would prefer they do unto me. I don’t go around killing because, you know, the Wild West rather sucked. It’s not a hard concept.

So there’s no moral question involved, it’s just a personal bet that this is the safest behavior for you?

BTW, the Wild West that you speak of is 99% a product of the movies (and cheap paperback novels before that).

Other animals -do and don’t- do it all the time. A pack of wolves doesn’t constantly kill off their own members. They work together because a group/society working together achieves more then the sum of the individual parts. Traveling in school of fish means that each individual fish is much less likely to be eaten then if they were alone.

Yes, packs of animals work together, but there is constant fighting between packs of many species for territory and members. So they don’t have a prohibition against killing their own species, just their own pack members. Why in the atheist view shouldn’t it be the same for humans?

In short, peaceful cooperation yields better results in the majority of cases. Division and subterfuge can benefit only small numbers of individuals and only in a minority of cases. Going around killing willynilly makes zero sense.

But that’s not a moral argument. “It’s not efficient” is not the same as “It’s wrong”. Many of those in history who have lived the best, fathered the most offspring, have been killers and oppressors. It DOES have benefits.

Edit: I see you were an Atheist. So you went around slitting throats when you didn’t believe in God, right? Because you were a moral-less heathen?

No, because I was very conscious of the natural law. I (mostly) obeyed my conscience. I just didn’t understand where it came from.

 

[EviPolevhia]

So there’s no moral question involved, it’s just a personal bet that this is the safest behavior for you?

BTW, the Wild West that you speak of is 99% a product of the movies (and cheap paperback novels before that).

My point is that might makes right by the point of a gun is a horrible society I would not want to live in. In fact I don’t think that might makes right is a good system anyway.

Yes, packs of animals work together, but there is constant fighting between packs of many species for territory and members. So they don’t have a prohibition against killing their own species, just their own pack members. Why in the atheist view shouldn’t it be the same for humans?

I’m not sure what the Atheist view you’re referring to is. There is no more an Atheist view then there is a Theist view. My thoughts are different from Raelians thoughts on these issues almost assuredly. Just like your views on Morality are different from any number of other Theists.

And as far as killing others of the same species but not of the same pack I could argue their reasons are the same as justified human reasons. Self preservation would be the main goal. Maintaining that your group doesn’t starve or be run out of their home as well. If Iran came in with their troops to Israel and tried to evict the whole country, you do agree they would be justified in defending themselves if it came to killing, right? So why not a pack of wolves who have a cave and another pack is trying to move in?

But that’s not a moral argument. “It’s not efficient” is not the same as “It’s wrong”. Many of those in history who have lived the best, fathered the most offspring, have been killers and oppressors. It DOES have benefits.

Your definition of moral and mine are too different. Until we can reconcile those differences it’d probably be a waste of time for me to clearly define for you where I see the difference between efficiency and morality.

 

[snarflemike]

I think we’re back at the original question, which in my view is, by what standard does an atheist judge that it is wrong/evil for God to do something?

 

[EviPolevhia]

I think we’re back at the original question, which in my view is, by what standard does an atheist judge that it is wrong/evil for God to do something?

By their own morals which I know for you is laughable.

 

[snarflemike]

By their own morals which I know for you is laughable.

No, not laughable at all. I don’t have any contempt for atheists (see my profile ), and as we are taught, we need to offer an explanation for the joy that is in us, and do so in charity. So I am open to having a charitable and hopefully beneficial conversation about this issue.

So (a) where do those morals come from, and (b) are they universal or do they only apply to the one person? If they are universal, by what standard are they universal?