Old Testament Atrocities

[dav3203]

Hello to everyone!

NB I’m seeking direct (explanatory) responses to this particular issue…

Situation:
A common accusation is that the God of the Old Testament is ‘evil’ - or, to quote Dawkins, “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (from his bestseller ) Now this kind of accusation is (like Dawkins’) generally accompanied by rhetoric but no real evidence other than a handful of OT quotes (for instance 1 Samuel 15:13).
So naturally this kind of accusation has not really been addressed seriously by most Christians, because it’s simply a weak argument. However, despite that truth, it raises a point - those handfuls of quotes certainly don’t sit easily with our modern understanding of God.

Of course, exploring the historical and literal context (form criticism) and its implications, will be of key importance in coming to an understanding that allows these quotes to agree with our modern understanding; my question would be how exactly we explain this process. What exactly do these contexts entail?

<NB: One argument I came across in my search for this explanation was William Lane Craig’s defense (“Did God Commit Atrocities in the Old Testament?” - see reasonablefaith.org) - while I respect him very much I wasn’t satisfied with his explanation, which as I understand it went like this:
If God commands us to do something, then the very fact of his command is reason enough to explain the change of the moral status of an action, even an action which may originally have been immoral. Thus, for example, Abraham’s action to sacrifice Isaac - in the absence of a command from God - would indeed have been atrocious. But the very fact that God issued his command to Abraham, changes the situation altogether. What was originally an immoral action is now an act of submission, of obedience toward God. Thus Abraham commits no wrong.
Now there isn’t anything illogical about this, and I have taken it out of the full context of his argument (it’s only a small part of his talk) but even as a whole, this argument and others don’t appear to be satisfactory. I know that many things don’t have a satisfactory answer, but answers like these really don’t cut it.>

So, what are some of your responses?

 

[NewCatholic1207]

I too am facing these accusations from atheists I am conversing with.

 

[DOShea]

My response would be simple. God conforms to God, not to what Richard Dawkins or anyone else thinks He should conform to.

Dawkins wrote the manuscript for his book, yes? So at one time we can assume it was all there, a complete text, on some computer. Dawkins created it, and at that point he could have totally annihilated chapter 5 and renumbered the rest to fit. He could have block-copied Ch. 6 and pasted it over Ch. 5, making 6 the “killer” of 5. Would that, then, make Dawkins unjust for “killing” words he created? Does Dawkins have to explain his actions to anyone who wants to know why, or is his creativity his own business?

God creates life, ALL of it, from nothing. The One who gives life is free to take it away without so much as a wrinkle in the fabric of justice. It’s pretty egotistical to imagine God acting in the early millenia, pausing first to check if His actions would appear logical and sound to someone who doesn’t even believe He exists in the 21st century.

 

[thereisnogod]

The argument is not a weak one. All throughout the old testament there are many times where the concept of a tyrannical God is not only apparent but obvious.

There is the various times throughout Exodus and Deuteronomy where god specifically orders the complete genocide of entire cities, men women children infants. The Hebrew conquest was little more then that of a pillaging hoard. And the fact that they killed infants is the real kicker here, because they were killed before they had any choice in whether or not they would accept god’s “truth”. So god effectively sent them to hell even though they had no opportunity to be saved.

There was the time in 2nd kings: (chapter 2) he killed upward of forty children simply because they made fun of somebody for being bald.

There was the fact that he intentionally hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and then committed mass infanticide because Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.

In Noah’s flood, god once again committed mass infanticide, killing babies before they could accept God’s “truth”.

And then there are dozens more! Just google examples of biblical atrocity and you’ll get thousands of links that all directly quote bible passages that support Dawkin’s description of god.

So take these examples into consideration before you shrug off the argument as being “unsupported.”

 

[CatholicGuy22]

God can do anything he pleases and he is just. Those people were pagans who threatend the Jewish people. Our simple minds can not comprehend what God does sometimes so there is no real answer.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hello to everyone!

NB I’m seeking direct (explanatory) responses to this particular issue…

Situation:
A common accusation is that the God of the Old Testament is ‘evil’ - or, to quote Dawkins, “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (from his bestseller ) Now this kind of accusation is (like Dawkins’) generally accompanied by rhetoric but no real evidence other than a handful of OT quotes (for instance 1 Samuel 15:13).
So naturally this kind of accusation has not really been addressed seriously by most Christians, because it’s simply a weak argument. However, despite that truth, it raises a point - those handfuls of quotes certainly don’t sit easily with our modern understanding of God.

Of course, exploring the historical and literal context (form criticism) and its implications, will be of key importance in coming to an understanding that allows these quotes to agree with our modern understanding; my question would be how exactly we explain this process. What exactly do these contexts entail?

<NB: One argument I came across in my search for this explanation was William Lane Craig’s defense (“Did God Commit Atrocities in the Old Testament?” - see reasonablefaith.org) - while I respect him very much I wasn’t satisfied with his explanation, which as I understand it went like this:
If God commands us to do something, then the very fact of his command is reason enough to explain the change of the moral status of an action, even an action which may originally have been immoral. Thus, for example, Abraham’s action to sacrifice Isaac - in the absence of a command from God - would indeed have been atrocious. But the very fact that God issued his command to Abraham, changes the situation altogether. What was originally an immoral action is now an act of submission, of obedience toward God. Thus Abraham commits no wrong.
Now there isn’t anything illogical about this, and I have taken it out of the full context of his argument (it’s only a small part of his talk) but even as a whole, this argument and others don’t appear to be satisfactory. I know that many things don’t have a satisfactory answer, but answers like these really don’t cut it.>

So, what are some of your responses?

God has not changed, it’s human perception and understanding of God that changed. The authors of the Old Testament experienced God and interpreted (and passed on) their experience in terms that made sense to them.

Fortunately, God chose through the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) to grace humanity with an experience and understanding of God that was previously unknown and unknowable.

 

[NotWorthy]

The argument is not a weak one. All throughout the old testament there are many times where the concept of a tyrannical God is not only apparent but obvious.

There is the various times throughout Exodus and Deuteronomy where god specifically orders the complete genocide of entire cities, men women children infants. The Hebrew conquest was little more then that of a pillaging hoard. And the fact that they killed infants is the real kicker here, because they were killed before they had any choice in whether or not they would accept god’s “truth”. So god effectively sent them to hell even though they had no opportunity to be saved.

There was the time in 2nd kings: (chapter 2) he killed upward of forty children simply because they made fun of somebody for being bald.

There was the fact that he intentionally hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and then committed mass infanticide because Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.

In Noah’s flood, god once again committed mass infanticide, killing babies before they could accept God’s “truth”.

And then there are dozens more! Just google examples of biblical atrocity and you’ll get thousands of links that all directly quote bible passages that support Dawkin’s description of god.

So take these examples into consideration before you shrug off the argument as being “unsupported.”

All of this would be true if there was no after-life.

But, if God orders the death of an innocent baby, then God can look into the soul of that Baby and reward him (or punish him) by seeing what kind of person that baby would have been.

If you see this world as journey AND destination, instead of this world as journey and the next world as destination, then you can easily misconstrue God’s actions.

And, in my opinion, if you see this world as journey AND destination, than this would be a rather sad ride that we are all on. :sad_yes:

 

[thereisnogod]

All of this would be true if there was no after-life.

But, if God orders the death of an innocent baby, then God can look into the soul of that Baby and reward him (or punish him) by seeing what kind of person that baby would have been.

If you see this world as journey AND destination, instead of this world as journey and the next world as destination, then you can easily misconstrue God’s actions.

And, in my opinion, if you see this world as journey AND destination, than this would be a rather sad ride that we are all on. :sad_yes:

If God will arbitrarily look into the future of babies and make decisions about their destination, then why give anyone a chance? why not just skip to the end and judge everyone based on what their lives would have been like? Why not take unborn babies and send some of them to hell based on the transgressions they never got a chance to make? Your position is one that our lives are fated from the beginning, and I don’t see how anyone could knowingly hold that position. By the way your world works, choice is an illusion.

As for your last comment. I do see this world as both a journey and destination, and I don’t find life sad at all. I didn’t much mind not existing before I was born, so I doubt I’ll find it particularly troubling after I’m dead.

 

[buffalo]

What happened to the souls of those people in the OT?

 

[katy]

My understanding is that God used a crude form of direction in the OT because that was what people of lthe time could understand, like the “hardness of heart” that led him to allow polygamy. The babies would be taken care of by God the same as he takes care of the souls of anyone else. He hasn’t told us. Maybe he calls them at the moment of death as Sr. Faustina said. Maybe they were in Sheol until Jesus visited it after the Crucifixion.

 

[Bookcat]

Jimmy Akin:

jimmyakin.org/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 28 March 2010 100328
Dear Fellow Members of the Body of Christ, the Church … especially you who are like me, a Roman Catholic –
I believe I can add something positive and constructive. Please bear with me.

St Athanasius in his writings explains why it was necessary for man’s salvation that God became a real human being. COULD God have saved mankind in other and gentler ways? Of course! Why then did God choose and insist upon having His Eternal Son become a real human being, subject to every pain and suffering we all share? Athanasius explains that it was the best way for US … it was necessary, not because of any limitation on God’s part, but because it was necessary so we could be benefited as we needed.

Consider – What about us? Savages > barbarians > limited social beings > somewhat advanced social beings (and I guess that’s where I’d better halt). Yes, God ordered atrocities to be done in the Old Testament BECAUSE it was what his people … ALL the nations but especially His chosen people … NEEDED. Try giving Charles Manson a kind and loving break and releasing him today. You want to try? No way. Bless him. Pray for him. Hope to spend Eternity with him in Heaven. BUT – don’t release him. He’s not ready. Over time, though, God may indeed get him ready – I don’t know.

The ancient people, and especially God’s chosen people, NEEDED to be dealt with STRONGLY and with severe consequences for bad conduct. They had to LEARN, to MATURE. And God Knows! ALL OF US ARE STILL MATURING!

There wasn’t anything wrong with God. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy … and he is US!”

What do you think? John (JohnJFarren)

 

[NotWorthy]

If God will arbitrarily look into the future of babies and make decisions about their destination, then why give anyone a chance? why not just skip to the end and judge everyone based on what their lives would have been like? Why not take unborn babies and send some of them to hell based on the transgressions they never got a chance to make? Your position is one that our lives are fated from the beginning, and I don’t see how anyone could knowingly hold that position. By the way your world works, choice is an illusion.

Well, first of all, I was just opining. But this opinion is not unique to me. The Church teaches a Baptism of Desire. And I also understand that the Church teaches that God may act on a person that has not known Christ’s “imaginary” actions had he known Christ.

As for your last comment. I do see this world as both a journey and destination, and I don’t find life sad at all. I didn’t much mind not existing before I was born, so I doubt I’ll find it particularly troubling after I’m dead.

Ah, then you are lucky. What about the person who has lived a hell their entire life?

I find that suffering is a lot easier when you have a hope in a future life.

 

[NotWorthy]

What happened to the souls of those people in the OT?

They were preached when Jesus’ Body was in the tomb. I believe it is St. Peter that taught this in one of his Epistles.

In the Nicene Creed, the line, “He descended into Hell, the third day He rose again”, describes the timeline of this.

 

[buffalo]

Well, first of all, I was just opining. But this opinion is not unique to me. The Church teaches a Baptism of Desire. And I also understand that the Church teaches that God may act on a person that has not known Christ’s “imaginary” actions had he known Christ.

Ah, then you are lucky. What about the person who has lived a hell their entire life?

I find that suffering is a lot easier when you have a hope in a future life.

Right - they could be in eternity with God. How can that be a raw deal?

 

[dav3203]

Thanks to everybody for your thoughts on this issue - I still haven’t found any satisfactory answers after asking around a fair bit. I don’t expect to find one any time soon either, and I’m fine with that as well. It appears to me that the ‘difficulty’ inherent in this problem - that is, apparent Divine cruelty - is not dissimilar to the difficulty of human suffering. That is, the existence of evil (or, as Lewis put it, the Problem of Pain…)

JohnJFarren’s post is one that to me comes close to providing some sense of the problem. I agree that the Israelites of the Old Testament were in a situation very different to that of postmodern Christianity. In fact I don’t think it would be an exaggeration in any way to even describe pre-Christian tribal life as barbaric… and as such, it would be at least understandable that God’s interaction with his chosen people would be very different to that which we experience through Christ, to say the least.

I still think that a satisfactory answer would require exploration of what exactly Old Testament Israelite life was like - in other words, a delving into the context of pre-Christianity. For example, it is easier to understand the necessity of ruthless commands by God to his people, if the reality of pagan, Philistine, non-Jewish life, was one of complete sin. And that would not be too far from the truth, considering the atrocities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. In such a case it’s hard to think of any way other than exterminating those who are living, breeding and dying in complete isolation from God (sinfulness). (For instance it would not strike me as ‘loving’ to allow sinful people to proceed unheeded, in their debauchery, violence and abuse of nature. Surely something would have to be done; that already makes the events of the Old Testament more plausible as commands given by a loving God. Because already the question shifts from ‘intervention’ in the first place by God, to ‘this particular way to intervene’ that God chooses… or does this just complicate things?)
I’m sure much more could be said in this direction… To me it sounds like a reasonable and plausible approach to this problem…

I would disagree with DOShea’s line of argument; in any case I find it less convincing. It is true that we humans are not in a position to ‘judge’ the actions of God, if that is what they are. But to reason that because God is good, therefore God’s will as expressed in the Old Testament is something should be accepted as good - that is counter-intuitive and counterproductive I would think… The whole point of the problem at hand is to try and reconcile these two apparently contradictory things, ‘death and suffering’ and ‘omnipotent goodness’, together, is it not…?

I also find diggerdomer’s approach problematic - to say that “The authors of the Old Testament experienced God and interpreted (and passed on) their experience in terms that made sense to them” would be to go into the shaky grounds of biblical re-interpretation I think. It seems to me just as counter-productive to respond to the problem of God being fallible in his omnipotent goodness, with an answer that essentially states that God might be fallible in his Word. That being said, that kind of approach does push important points I suppose.

NotWorthy, if in your first post (“God can look into the soul of that Baby and reward him (or punish him) by seeing what kind of person that baby would have been”) you are meaning that God is capable of judging decisions we would only hypothetically make, I would strongly disagree. It doesn’t strike me as being consistent with Church teaching at all. Could you clarify? Predestination, in the sense that our actions are pre-determined and affect our complete freedom, is certainly contrary to Church doctrine…
I do certainly agree, however, that belief in God and life after death makes all the difference in our understanding of all things…

To thereisnogod: I don’t deny that this problem of apparent atrocity committed by God is, in fact, a hard problem to come to make sense of in Catholic belief. However to me it seems rather clear that that is the premise from which I started the topic - the very challenge i put out was to find a solution to this problem, wasn’t it? Any chance of you playing devil’s advocate and coming up with some plausible ways of agreeing these admittedly apparent contradictions with one another? Agreeing God, in the Catholic understanding (i.e. attributes of Truth, Goodness and Love) with the atrocious sounding commands of the Old Testament? As an atheist, your naturally different approach to this picture would probably make you come up with alternative and valuable contribution(s) to the problem, which would be very different to mine, I would imagine… Remember that to play devil’s advocate is a noble and useful thing… hehe…

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy, if in your first post (“God can look into the soul of that Baby and reward him (or punish him) by seeing what kind of person that baby would have been”) you are meaning that God is capable of judging decisions we would only hypothetically make, I would strongly disagree. It doesn’t strike me as being consistent with Church teaching at all. Could you clarify? Predestination, in the sense that our actions are pre-determined and affect our complete freedom, is certainly contrary to Church doctrine…
I do certainly agree, however, that belief in God and life after death makes all the difference in our understanding of all things…

I never mentioned pre-destination, or meant to imply that.

God exists outside of time, and can see all time at any single moment.

And He can tell future events, even while allowing us to make our decisions. If you read 1st Samuel, you will come across an incident where David asks God (through Nathan the prophet) to determine what Saul will do, based upon David’s actions. If David stays in a town, will Saul pursue and kill him? God replies that he will. But if David flees the town and heads out into the wilderness, will Saul pursue him? God replies that Saul will give up the chase.

Were any of these two event pre-determined? No. God can see what happens based on the hearts of men.

Again, let me repeat a point I made on a previous post. If a person dies without ever knowing Christ, doesn’t the Church teach that God judges that person based on what would have happened had he ever learned of Christ?

 

[grannymh]

Again, let me repeat a point I made on a previous post. If a person dies without ever knowing Christ, doesn’t the Church teach that God judges that person based on what would have happened had he ever learned of Christ?

No.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches.

this is a link to the Catechism
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Again, let me repeat a point I made on a previous post. If a person dies without ever knowing Christ, doesn’t the Church teach that God judges that person based on what would have happened had he ever learned of Christ?

Not exactly. There is a condition regarding a person’s real time actions. It is supposed that a person who seeks truth and acts in accord with his understanding of God’s will would have wanted to be baptized had he known about it. The idea that Baptism “would have been desired” is based on the actual facts of a person’s life, i.e., the way in which the person lived day by day.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of His Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His Sacraments.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1257-1261

Use this handy link for the Catechism www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[NotWorthy]

Not exactly. There is a condition regarding a person’s real time actions. It is supposed that a person who seeks truth and acts in accord with his understanding of God’s will would have wanted to be baptized had he known about it. The idea that Baptism “would have been desired” is based on the actual facts of a person’s life, i.e., the way in which the person lived day by day.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Now, back to the context of the OP, according to all you’ve just posted, the innocent babies would not fit under that category, since they haven’t had a chance to live their lives. I know the Church is silent on these matters, for example aborted children. So, I guess, all we can do is opine and trust in the Will of God. Of course, that 2nd little caveat is a little tough for an athiest; hence, I can only resort to opining.