How do I respond to this commonly heard attacks on the old testament?

[CHCL]

I constantly hear that the old testament is the story of an evil god by agnostics and atheists. I know they are wrong but I am not so knowledgeable about the old testament in general (BTW, I just started reading about the faith more often, but have never gotten an answer) , and don’t want to spread any falsehood.

Here are some examples of what I hear often.

The majority of Christians I have talked to do not even know what is in the Old Testament. They do not know that God condoned and demanded rape, slavery, torture, killing little babies, and genocide.

At first they start out by denying these things are in the bible. When pointed out verse after verse then they turn to Christian apologists to explain away such things as God demanding rape and genocide and torture and slavery and killing little babies.

This is called complete indoctrination without being able to think rationally or being able to use critical thinking.

Let’s start with the evil and raving lunatic, Ezekiel.

His prophecy about Egypt did not happen.

Of course as a prophet he is a favorite of God even though he is a very evil man. Apparently God of the bible picks out very evil people to get His special attention?

People who call the bible “the good book” have not read the Old Testament or if they have are completely indoctrinated [brainwashed]

There are many such contradictions in the bible but there is a reason for the contradictions.

The reason is the bible was written by men and not by a God.

Christian apologists will try and explain away the contradiction such as above. They usually say you have to view these passage in “context”

You really have to suspend reason to buy their arguments.

Yes, never forget the old testament. It lets you know what is ok and what is not. For example, it is not ok to mix fabrics or eat shrimp or make fun of a bald prophit of God. Those will get you a death sentence. But beating your slaves, killing children, and forcing little girls to marry you after you murdered her parents in front of her to take land that a little voice in your head said was yours for the taking, all of that is ok.

These are a few of hundreds of examples. Thanks for you answers.

 

[ahs]

FIrst of all, ask for the quotes from the pertinent book they are referring to. Then, read it. then read it again, except not in isolation…read it with the surrouding passages (before and after) and find out what is happening without just taking someone’s word for it.

Keep this always in mind. If the wages of sin is death (and it is), then what has every normal human person on earth, from Adam to present day, earned? And if God is a just God, (and He is), then how is it unjust to allow us to reap the payment/wages of our sin? You will find that the better question is not “why would a good God allow these terrible things…?” but rather, “Why would God, Who owes us nothing other than the wages we have earned in our sin, decide to save us? Why, when ALL peoples had done nothing but offend Him and reject Him, did He have compassion on the Israelites and use them to set in motion the salvation of all humanity?”

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Scripture (the NT first) and the Cathechism.
There is no point arguing for or against something you know little about, which in fact is what the people you “quote” are doing. Overall, I’d say none but a very small few would remain atheists/agnostics if they were truly well read concerning the church’s teachings.

When someone says the things that you mention, I would automatically not engage them in a discussion. It is a waste of time to argue with ignorance. There are also people with other agendas, who try to discredit the church because of it’s stance on sexuality, contraception and abortion. One can come across some very angry people.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To the OP, be careful. Many apologetics in response to complaints about the OT will do one or more of the following:

1. Claim that the Bible isn’t a history book, as if taking the stories in a symbolic sense wouldn’t put God in an unfavorable light.
2. Use the word context early and often even though there is no context that washes away its distressing nature.
3. Add or remove elements to the story to make the argument more convincing.
4. State that God can do as he wishes since he is God (much like the Bill Cosby joke when he tells his son, “I brought you into this world and I can take you out!”)

 

[anruari]

Get yourself a good catholic bible. Get one with a good commentary, or get a seperate catholic commentary

Study your bible. Come to a proper understanding of the content. These are not arguments you can take an “Off the shelf” approach to, especially based on the broad range of differing attacks you describe.

I will point to a few issues however:

1. the “Law of Moses” as expressed in Leviticus and Numbers is **not binding ** on modern christians. It was a law written by the Levitical priesthood as their best attempt to understand the will of God. Just as the Church has that authority for Christians, so the Levites held that authority for the Jews.
   As Christians our moral law is “Natural Law”.
   So that straight away eliminates any attempt to claim that the laws in the old testament represent modern christian moral thinking.
2. The “Old Testament” is not a snapshot of one relationship between God and the Israelites taken at one point in time. It is a book which relates the evolving understanding of the Hebrew people of their relationship with God, and the rest of the world. It is not one Covenant or one Testament (the 2 english words are the same in greek & hebrew) but is a story of a series of covenants between God and Man, and God and the Chosen People.
   It tells the story of a didactic and pedagogical relationship by which the People of God were prepared for the coming of the Messiah, and gradual increase in divine Revelation.
3. Of course the books in the bible were written by men. There are only 3 accounts of the Hand of God directly writing anything.
   a) the 10 Commandments carved into stone.
   b) the “Writing on the wall” as described in the book of Daniel.
   c) Jesus wrote in the dirt when defending the woman caught in adultery.

some people would interpret a) and many interpret b) as being more “parable” than “history”. We have no record of what jesus wrote in the dirt.

What the church claims about the bible is that it is a collection of inspired books, however the inspiration is limited to the ability of the author to hear, interpret and write down that divine inspiration. Each book in the bible has a separate history, and a distinct origin. Each is written for a specific group of people in a specific time frame and needs to be understood in that context.

All of this requires far deeper study than I can relate right now, or even understand yet myself.
However as for your claim of “Indoctrination” well can you understand and work in the field of advanced quantum physics without first studying Physics, subatomic physics and quantum physics first? of course not.

So a proper understanding of the bible needs to be informed by some understanding of Philosophy and Theology. It also requires some understanding of the History and Culture present when each book was written. - This is not “Indoctrination” it is understanding the context of the separate books under discussion, and the larger theological framework under which each is considered to be inspired.
Some of this can be taken on trust from those more learned and who have studied it before you. but depending on your mind-set and the people with whom you are discussing, some of this needs you to be able to put forward a strong argument in favour of your position.

So may I recommend that 1) you read your bible. either from front to back or starting with the NT and then read the OT. This should take about a year, but can be completed in as little as 90 days.
2) look for a good, accretided bible study course. there are many programmes available. you may find a cathlic parish or college near you with a good one, or you may choose to study by distance learning.
Do your research, and try to study from a faithful catholic source. there are some massively differing concepts of biblical interpretation in the wider world with some truly wacky ideas floating about.
If your US based I would recommend looking to see if the Franciscan University of Steubenville have any distance learning courses that might suit you.
ditto, I would reccomend the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. Unfortunately with the N.T. is complete, only 3 volumes of the OT are published.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

To the OP, be careful. Many apologetics in response to complaints about the OT will do one or more of the following:

1. Claim that the Bible isn’t a history book, as if taking the stories in a symbolic sense wouldn’t put God in an unfavorable light.

But it’s not, and never has been, primarily a history book. Why would pointing out that fact be problematic to discussion? Also, the term unforgivable is only important when some wrong has been done. Can you illustrate to me a single instance in which God does anything wrong?

1. Use the word context early and often even though there is no context that washes away its distressing nature.

Sure, context is unimportant, unless you’re talking about the culture, developmental state of the people, general societal structure of the time, the societies that Judaism interacted with, the traditional religious practices of those societies, actions surrounding decisions, logic and reasoning behind certain rules, and the general style of the passages being read (indicative of their either being literal or allegorical)… then context kinda sorta becomes really, really important…

1. Add or remove elements to the story to make the argument more convincing.

Funny, I don’t seem to recall anyone around here doing that. Perhaps with your obviously omniscient knowledge of the Bible you could point out such an instance to me. (sorry, I’m in a snarky mood. Don’t want to go committing a fallacy…)

1. State that God can do as he wishes since he is God (much like the Bill Cosby joke when he tells his son, “I brought you into this world and I can take you out!”)

You consider that statement nonsense because you reject God. However, as in any discussion, it is important to consider the alternative viewpoint (otherwise any discussion is useless). If God truly did create everything in existence through a sheer act of will, and sustains it through the same act of will, then why, exactly, is it faulty to believe that as the author of all creation He can do with his creation as He pleases?

To the OP, I’ll pass along some real advice. Jimmy Akin has several articles dealing with the various “difficult passages” of the OT. I’d start there:

jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

 

[KP3243]

Lots of people like to create pretexts with the Bible to prove some point or another. We have to read the Bible as a whole and with sacred tradition or else it doesn’t make sense and can be dangerous. I see people using the what appears to be discrepancies between the Passion account of Mark’s Gospel and John’s Gospel as a way to prove that the Bible contradicts itself. If you take away sacred tradition they do appear to be at odds with one another on what day was considered Passover. Mark’s Gospel was written before John’s, John seems to address things that he feels the other Gospel writers have left out or he needs to clarify, the difference in when Passover occurred is rooted in the fact the Sadducees and Pharisees celebrated the Passover on different days if Passover fell on the Sabbath but taking that out of the context of sacred tradition and the order that the Gospel’s were written people can conclude the wrong thing.

 

[Bagheera]

How incredibly funny. “Read in context”… “those were different times”… “those laws are not applicable any more”… etc… etc…

On the other hand there is the official teaching that some actions (like murder, slavery, etc…) are intrinsically evil, cannot be condoned under any circumstances - except when the eternal, unchanging word of God happens to dictate them. Poor apologists, they are so pathetic.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How incredibly funny. “Read in context”… “those were different times”… “those laws are not applicable any more”… etc… etc…

On the other hand there is the official teaching that some actions (like murder, slavery, etc…) are intrinsically evil, cannot be condoned under any circumstances - except when the eternal, unchanging word of God happens to dictate them. Poor apologists, they are so pathetic.

Nice to see some humility in a dissenter…

Now that I’m done being snarky.

Read in Context: Covered in my post above. Context is incredibly important in reading any text, especially one such as the Bible.

Different times: So, you’re positing that society has not changed at all in the last ten thousand years or so? I can’t wait to see you back that one up. I need a good laugh.

Laws not applicable: Societal laws change with the society (this is in reference to many of the Deuteronomical laws, the ones you atheists seem to take such issue with). Many of the OT laws existed purely to set the Jewish people apart from the Gentiles, and were no longer necessary when Christ came and spread the word of God to all people, Gentile and Jew alike. It is the moral laws that do not change, like murder, adultery, etc.

You put forth the example of murder being intrinsically evil, and it is. I assume the contradiction you’re attempting to reference are instances such as the wiping out of… alimek…? I can’t remember what that society was called… almek… sorry, hopefully someone else can fix that for me… But, getting back to the point, this is where the context you so wrongfully wrote off comes into play. That society was wiped out because it was evil, period. It regularly sacrificed children to it’s gods, it engaged in ritual rape and orgy, and generally had zero regard for human life. It was deemed necessary to completely wipe them out because of the tribal nature of civilization at the time. Such societies (as we see regularly in the African tribal societies, as well as other middle-eastern tribes) are highly-prone to intense retribution for any perceived slight, and also generally prone to massacring other tribes simply for not being a part of the core tribe. If they hadn’t been completely removed then the Jewish people would have likely suffered for it in the future. Is it ideal, no; is it sad, yes, definitely. However, did the societal structure of the time dictate it’s necessity in order to ensure peaceful existence for the Jewish people? Most definitely.

Your arguments have been made and answered ad infinitum. Just do a search on the forums and you will find ample examples as to why those things you write off are both important and necessary.

 

[TruthLoverJC]

I agree with ProdglArchitect. Any part of the Bible can’t be interpreted individually. The Bible has to be looked at for what it is - a continuous, developing revelation spanning centuries. God is not like us and He is not bound by our limitations. Objective morality to us was set and created by Him.

 

[KP3243]

If you are going to get into a debate with an atheist make sure you know scripture really well because atheists know it better than some Catholics do, they just don’t understand the theology behind most of scripture or they know the theology and don’t accept it. When you engage in dialogue with atheists, you need to bring more than memorizing what scripture says you need to provide the understanding what God’s intention is.

 

[sealoch]

If you have not read the bible yourself. Do that first. If after that you are still able to defend the old testament then by all means do so. If after reading it and you feel conflicted maybe there is something to that.

 

[KP3243]

If you have not read the bible yourself. Do that first. If after that you are still able to defend the old testament then by all means do so. If after reading it and you feel conflicted maybe there is something to that.

She should probably attend her Church’s bible study or get a good Catholic Online Bible study. Visit Scott Hahn’s website it is a great start and he explains Salvation History better than anyone I can think of. salvationhistory.com/

 

[sealoch]

She should probably attend her Church’s bible study or get a good Catholic Online Bible study. Visit Scott Hahn’s website it is a great start and he explains Salvation History better than anyone I can think of. salvationhistory.com/

This is odd to me. Do not read it yourself go to someone else and let them explain it to you.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If you have not read the bible yourself. Do that first. If after that you are still able to defend the old testament then by all means do so. If after reading it and you feel conflicted maybe there is something to that.

The Bible should not be read in a vacuum because it cannot be understood in a vacuum. There is far, far too much that is derived from the language used, the style of writing, the social, political and economic climates of the era it was written in and a myriad of other factors which play into understanding the Bible; so much so that it is completely impossible for a mere human to have all the requisite knowledge needed to understand it properly. This is part of why we have the Church.

By all means, read your Bible, but do so in a position where your questions can be answered with an appropriate amount of historic knowledge.

This is odd to me. Do not read it yourself go to someone else and let them explain it to you.

You’re misrepresenting what we’re saying. Read the Bible, definitely, but not without context. The Bible is an incredibly complex document, so much so that people spend their entire lives studying it, and still don’t even come close to having a complete understanding of it. You do not tell a scientist to ignore other studies into the field they are researching, so why would it make sense to tell somebody to ignore existing studies and historical research / context when studying such a complex document?

 

[Aloysium]

How incredibly funny. “Read in context”… “those were different times”… “those laws are not applicable any more”… etc… etc…

On the other hand there is the official teaching that some actions (like murder, slavery, etc…) are intrinsically evil, cannot be condoned under any circumstances - except when the eternal, unchanging word of God happens to dictate them. Poor apologists, they are so pathetic.

I recognize that you do not represent anyone but yourself, but this silly, nonsensical response is commonly seen, and really does whatever the person is attempting to argue, some serious damage.

You do not appear to be someone worth talking to. I am saying this to give you the heads up; if you do have something you want to say, be serious in the way you present it.

 

[sealoch]

The Bible should not be read in a vacuum because it cannot be understood in a vacuum. There is far, far too much that is derived from the language used, the style of writing, the social, political and economic climates of the era it was written in and a myriad of other factors which play into understanding the Bible; so much so that it is completely impossible for a mere human to have all the requisite knowledge needed to understand it properly. This is part of why we have the Church.

By all means, read your Bible, but do so in a position where your questions can be answered with an appropriate amount of historic knowledge.

You’re misrepresenting what we’re saying. Read the Bible, definitely, but not without context. The Bible is an incredibly complex document, so much so that people spend their entire lives studying it, and still don’t even come close to having a complete understanding of it. You do not tell a scientist to ignore other studies into the field they are researching, so why would it make sense to tell somebody to ignore existing studies and historical research / context when studying such a complex document?

They do not exclude other scientific studies however if one contradicts another what then. How is it that 50 theologians can look at a passage and come away with different answers. In the same instance 50 scientists will eventually reach the same testable conclusion.

 

[KP3243]

This is odd to me. Do not read it yourself go to someone else and let them explain it to you.

The Bible is not open to personal interpretation and it says exactly that in 2 Peter 1:20, problems happen and people pervert scripture to suit their own good when it is removed from Sacred Tradition. The Pillar and Bulwark is the Church, 1 Timothy 3:15. The Catholic Church compiled all the old testament cannon and new testament cannon and created the Holy Bible it is part of the Church and how the books were chosen was by Sacred Tradition to insure they were only including divinely inspired works.

 

[KP3243]

They do not exclude other scientific studies however if one contradicts another what then. How is it that 50 theologians can look at a passage and come away with different answers. In the same instance 50 scientists will eventually reach the same testable conclusion.

There shouldn’t be 50 theologians who disagree but unfortunately there are, we have 50,000 Protestant denominations in US alone, it was not intended to be this way from the beginning.

 

[sealoch]

I recognize that you do not represent anyone but yourself, but this silly, nonsensical response is commonly seen, and really does whatever the person is attempting to argue, some serious damage.

You do not appear to be someone worth talking to. I am saying this to give you the heads up; if you do have something you want to say, be serious in the way you present it.

Nonsensical? it was understandable. Commonly seen response, if it is so common perhapse it has merit.
What damage is there from stating as he did? Also we are only responding to the original poster that maybe it is correct what they heard maybe regardless of what light you use to spin the passages they are evil.