When Human Wickedness is mistaken for God's
Word
Kirk Straughen
(Investigator 133, 2010
July)
Parts of the Bible portray God acting in a reprehensible manner more
consistent with a cruel and merciless dictator than a being considered
the epitome of moral virtue. I have no doubt that most Christians are
sensible enough to see these passages for what they are - merely
examples of the Biblical writer's own prejudices projected onto God,
rather than a true reflection of a morally perfect divinity.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists see the Bible as being unerringly true —
every word of it. Therefore, if God is portrayed as ordering the
killing of children (I Samuel 15:2-3), then they unquestioningly
believe it happened, and believe that such acts of savagery are
acceptable.
I find this quite disturbing, for if believers think that God sanctions
such barbarous acts, then they may come to believe that extreme
violence is righteous when authorized by divine command.
This may sound merely academic. However, recent history shows the
tragic results that can happen when people come to believe their
questionable actions are supported by supernatural fiat, and proceed to
act on such assumptions:
"President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq
and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a
divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel,
and a state for the Palestinians.
The President made the assertion during his first meeting with
Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will
be broadcast this month."
Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq.
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm
That the invasion was both unnecessary and unjustifiable is now
acknowledged by most people. Estimates of the number of civilians
killed vary — 100,000 to over a million. That the war has caused
immense suffering is beyond doubt:
So five years after Bush and Tony Blair launched the invasion of Iraq
against the wishes of a majority of UN members, no one knows how many
Iraqis have died. We do know that more than two million have fled
abroad. Another 1.5 million have sought safety elsewhere in Iraq. We
know that the combined horror of car bombs, suicide attacks, sectarian
killing and disproportionate US counter-insurgency tactics and air
strikes have produced the worst humanitarian catastrophe in today's
world. But the exact death toll remains a mystery.
What is the
Real Death Toll in Iraq? www.ardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
So, would God (if such a thing exists) order the invasion knowing in
advance (if It is omniscient) the appalling suffering that would follow
as a direct result the war's destabilizing effects on Iraq?
Would God order the killing of thousands? Would God consider it
acceptable to have children blown to pieces by bombs or, in more
primitive ages, to have their throats slit by rampaging Israelite
warriors? Some Christians may ague that God would. But I think that
most would not, and I am surprised that no Christian subscriber to Investigator
has written an article countering some of the
claims for
the affirmative which have been published in this magazine.
As none have done so to date I find myself (an Atheist) in the unusual
position of playing the role of theologian and producing a counter
argument from a Christian perspective, which is probably going to be
more comprehensible to people who share that particular view than any
non-theistic objections I can raise.
I shall begin my counter argument with an appeal to the Bible (Revised
Standard Version), which shall then be followed by some philosophical
objections based on the nature of God.
1 John 4:8 says "He who does not love does not know God; for God is
love." If God is defined as love, then what is love? 1 Corinthians 14
gives the following exposition:
If I speak in
the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am
a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and
understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so
as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away
all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I
gain nothing.
Love is patient and
kind,
love is not jealous or boastful, it is not
arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not
irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in
the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, endures all
things.
Love never ends; as for
prophecies, they will pass away; as for our
tongues, they will cease; as for our knowledge, it will pass away. For
our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the
perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I
spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child;
when I became a man I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a
mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in
part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully
understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest
of these is love.
Deuteronomy 5:17 has God command "you shall not kill," and Jesus is
reputed to have said "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who
strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also" (Luke 6:27-29).
In the light of these quotations what, dear reader, is more likely that
God (who is Love) would order the killing of children, and
George W. Bush to invade Iraq, or that misguided and delusional men
have subconsciously attributed their own desires to God in an attempt
to justify the unjustifiable?
Having concluded my theological protests I shall now move on to some
philosophical objections, which are based upon the Ontological Argument
of St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD).
This argument in its original form is extremely difficult to
understand. The following restatement, however, may make thing a little
clearer:
Proposition
1:
By the term "God" is meant a being than which none
greater can be conceived.
Proposition 2: Whether
we
affirm or deny the existence of God, a being
than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding.
Proposition 3: It is
possible to conceive of a being than which none
greater can be conceived existing not only in the understanding but in
reality as well; and this is greater.
Proposition 4: If,
therefore, a being than which none greater can be
conceived exists only in the understanding, it is not a being than
which none greater can be conceived.
Proposition 5:
Therefore,
a being than which none greater can be
conceived exists also in reality.
Page 124 in
Halverson, William H A: A Concise Introduction to
Philosophy, Random House, New York, 1976.
What St Anselm is arguing is that we can't deny the existence in
reality of a being than which none greater can be conceived without
contradicting ourselves. Now, if we define God as a being than which
none greater can be conceived, it follows (at least in St. Anselm's
view) that God's existence is necessarily true.
God is considered the creator of the universe. If this is true then God
must necessarily possess a degree of intelligence and power far greater
than that of human beings. But when the Bible is examined we find God
resorting to killing children as a solution. This is a very primitive
and barbaric way of dealing with a situation, and is not in keeping
with a God so ingenious that He, She or It could devise a universe as
complex as ours.
Now, I can conceive of a God so intelligent that He can solve problems
without resorting to killing people — either directly or by proxy
through His followers, and since this conception of God is ethically
greater than that of the Biblical god then it follows by St. Anselm's
proof that it is this more moral divinity that actually exists.
Therefore, God would not resort to killing children.
Don't Call Mercy "Wickedness"
Anonymous
(Investigator 134, 2010
September)
In Investigator #132 I showed that the Bible portrays the
Israel-Canaanite conflict as God's judgment on Canaan. As explained,
that judgment:
- Followed the rules
of war for those times (except
for buggering the defeated and raping the women) and treated the
Canaanites as they had treated others.
- Was
based on moral grounds (Deuteronomy 9:5;
Leviticus 18:24-25).
- Was
delayed 400 years to give opportunity for
reform.
- Was
preceded by warnings (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah,
Ten Plagues of Egypt).
- Spared people who
demonstrated opposition to
Canaanite ways.
- Was
a step to bringing "blessing" (i.e.
monotheism, salvation, prosperity, morality, health, peace) to "all the
nations of the earth" (Genesis 22:18).
- Gave
the human race opportunity to prevent its
extinction.
- Saved from genocide
another nation (Israel)
through whom the "blessing" would commence.
- Condemned — because
the above criteria include
some that are impossible-to-copy — all mistreatment of populations
throughout history.
Point "3", the 400-year delay, was itself merciful but included another
mercy — when a great grandson of Abraham predicted poor harvests and
organized the stockpiling of grain. (Genesis 39-42) This saved Egypt
and Canaan from famine and was a foretaste and validation of the
prediction that Abraham's descendants would bring "blessing" to all
nations (Point "6").
Although the "blessing" eventually improved billions of lives,
Straughen (#133) says, "No". Better than Canaanite boys being killed
mercifully, the Israelite children should instead have been sexually
mistreated by Canaanites and/or sacrificed to idols, and Israel
exterminated, and the "blessing" cancelled". Monotheism, improved
morality and science would then not have flourished, and Canaan's cults
would eventually have merged with cults elsewhere producing a world of
barbaric rituals, infanticide, institutionalized sexual abuse, and
human sacrifice.
WAR, CHILDREN and RETRIBUTION
Humans, not God, invented war in the unrecorded past. And
everyone
involved children — Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, etc — probably
because:
1.
Children were part of the economy, therefore
legitimate targets.
2.
Kings owned the people who therefore were
legitimate targets to reduce his power.
3.
Children were possessions of fathers, therefore
shared their fate.
4. If
not killed, children without parents would die
from exposure or wild animals — therefore killing them was merciful.
5.
Children often fought alongside parents and would
later seek revenge if spared.
Consider point 5: The Weekend Australian reported a "schoolboy
revolt"
in Kashmir with "street battles between stone-throwing boys, some as
young as eight, and security forces". (July 17-18, 2010, p. 19) When I
was five my parents got into fights with their landlord and his wife
with kicks, fists and stones. I joined in, not incited to do so, but
simply copying my parents. If mere example makes a 5-year-old fight,
then incitement and indoctrination with training would make even
younger boys dangerous.
When human evil in ancient times threatened to prevent the future
"blessing to all nations" such evil had to be stopped. And when
stopped, the standards of right and wrong of the perpetrators were
applied to them and sometimes their families — the rule was "judged as
they judge".
About 600BC the Scriptures indicated a change — that children should
not suffer for parental evils:
BLESSING TO THE CHILDREN
The prophet Ezekiel wrote that retribution should be individual, each
person should be punished for his own sins:
2 What do you
mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of
Israel, "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth
are set on edge"?
3 As I live says the
Lord
GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by
you in Israel.
4 Know that all lives
are
mine; the life of the parent as well as the
life of the child is mine; it is only the person that sins that shall
die…
20 A child shall not
suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent
suffer for the iniquity of a child… (Ezekiel 18)
This principle was and
is
widely ignored. In World War II, for example,
5-10 million children died and Muslim terrorists today often murder the
families of critics.
Ezekiel's principle nevertheless became central in modern law — and is
part of the "blessing to all the nations of the earth."
Consider also infanticide:
Sex-selective abortion and infanticide although illegal has produced a
sexual imbalance of 100,000,000 in Asia (See #132). In ancient times,
therefore, with infanticide institutionalized, the infant death toll
must have been staggering.
Discarded kids in Rome who were found by strangers were routinely put
to work as beggars but first mutilated to make begging more profitable.
Roman philosopher Seneca (4BC-65AD) even argued that such children had
no cause for complaint since their own parents didn't want them.
Christianity, however, got infanticide banned in the Roman Empire (See
#41) and eventually world-wide because:
1. The Bible
opposes murder;
2. "Sons are indeed a
heritage from the LORD, the
fruit of the womb a reward." (Psalm 123:3)
3. Jesus said, "Let the
little children come to me,
and do not stop them." (Luke 18:16)
So when I write of Abraham's "blessing" saving and improving "billions"
of lives, as New Testament standards increasingly permeated the world,
I'm not exaggerating.
For the "blessing" to begin, required that Canaanite religion with its
fertility rites, human sacrifice, child sexual abuse, and sex between
close relatives and humans with animals, not become the worldwide norm.
REGARDING
IRAQ
Straughen (#134) compares Canaan to the 2003 intervention in Iraq.
I discussed Iraq in #119. Most of the killing was done by Sunni
terrorists seeking to re-establish Sunni minority-rule, and Al Qaida
terrorists seeking to destabilize Muslim states to create a worldwide
Caliphate.
The Kurds of Iraq have democracy and increasing prosperity; the rest of
Iraq is progressing also. Shiites, Kurds and Kuwaitis gassed, starved
or tortured by Saddam's regime are glad he's gone.
Prosperity and rule of law often require violence to achieve. Consider
cases where international intervention delayed or failed:
- Ruwanda — 700,000
massacred in 1994.
- The Congo —
4,000,000
died in civil war.
- North Korea —
2,000,000 died from famine; another
2,000,000 languish in gulags.
- Somalia — Somalians
dismantled their own country,
even pulled out cables, railway lines and water pipes, and produced
millions of refugees and thousands of pirates.
- Zimbabwe — the
economy is crippled and the army
stacked with cronies to keep the president in power: "…nearly 6 million
people desperately need emergency food aid…Zimbabwe's troubles…reflects
an absolute failure of the international system, which is based on the
division of the world among sovereign governments…and…a right of non
interference…. (D. Flitton, Zimbabweans pay dearly for world's failure,
The Age, December 12, 2008, p. 17)
Flitton writes: "A government's ultimate purpose is to ensure the
physical safety of its citizens."
But who has the responsibility to protect when governments act like
gangsters? Flitton, citing "academics and international jurists", says:
"Where a local regime fails in that duty, the responsibility to act and
protect human rights, by military force if necessary, passes to the
international community."
Canaan's demise benefited the human race; and the intention for
toppling Saddam's regime was superficially similar. I don't see further
useful analogy.
CHILDREN
TODAY
Thousands of Christian ministries fulfill Jesus' prediction that his
followers will do greater deeds than he did. (John 14:12) Again, it's
part of Abraham's "blessing".
For example, Heidi and Rolland Baker went to Mozambique in 1995.
Beginning with 80 diseased, malnourished children in a rundown
orphanage they later provided for 10,000 children.
Worldwide 8.5 million children die yearly from pneumonia, diarrhea, and
malnutrition. Micah Challenge is a coalition of Christian
ministries to
save these children. The name comes from the prophet Micah who wrote:
"He has showed you what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (6:8)
New Scientist reported that 270,000, children died from AIDS
in 2007
and there are "15 million AIDS orphans worldwide". (November 22,
2008)
AIDS is tackled by governments, but Christians help with orphanages and
by teaching biblical morality — in Africa AIDs is spread by immorality
more than by drug-injection.
Imagine if Straughen's misrepresentation of God discouraged just one
Christian ministry. His supposed concern for ancient children would
then hurt many children alive now!
THEODICY
Why couldn't "God", if He exists and has unlimited power, have judged
Canaan without killing children?
I'll answer this query via Theodicy. "Theodicy" examines why evil
exists if God is both good and powerful.
In God, Tsunamis and Evil (# 104) I quoted Bible verses to
argue that
all humans reject God's standards of good and evil and follow their
own. God permits this as an experiment until humans learn from
experience that they need God's guidance. The human race has the
capacity to achieve virtually anything — even go to the stars. (Genesis
11:4, 6) Unlimited potential plus freedom to choose would be
inconsistent with forced submission; therefore God does not compel
compliance. Instead, His strategy is to let humans try out all the
ethical theories, governments, values and religions that they think of
and experience the consequences. In the meantime God arranges a
"savior" to save humans from the punishment they deserve.
This whole scenario requires that God stays away as if non-existent; so
that humans aren't intimidated by His power. To intimidate humans would
bias their decisions in what sort of governments, religions, ethics,
and laws they set up, and would be inconsistent with permitting
independence in the first place.
The need to be incognito explains why communication is by prayer, why
miracles seem in short supply, why suffering children don't get
miraculous rescue, and why God uses people as proxies to act on his
behalf.
If you missed the point, here it is again: Ongoing, large scale,
miraculous invention would be obvious to everyone and could not be
hidden. God's cover would be blown, and prevent unbiased evidence of
what happens when humans ignore God.
CONCLUSIONS
In the 1930s the nations could have stopped Nazi plans for world
conquest at a cost of 50,000 lives. But they didn't, and then it cost
40,000,000 lives.
The Bible portrays God as looking ahead to eternity and from that
perspective doing what's best.
Canaan was situated near the confluence of three continents, in the
middle of the world. Whatever values and religion thrived in Canaan
could potentially spread worldwide. The Bible implied as much by
stating that God gave Canaan to Abraham and that via Abraham's
offspring "all the nations of the earth will be blessed."
Rather than Canaanite standards dominating the world, we have Jesus,
monotheism, science and technology.
Rebutting Aspersions on God
K Straughen
(Investigator 135, 2010
November)
I was hoping that a Christian would offer some rebuttal of Anonymous'
position on the "Canaanite Holocaust" since his claims seem to cast
aspersions on the concept of a loving and merciful God.
I would like to think this deafening silence is not because the
majority agree with what to me is a debased and evil theology.
I find the situation worrying. The world already has enough fanatical
Muslims who believe people should be killed for one reason or another.
It is all very well for skeptics such as myself to point out that
religious violence is wrong, but do you know of any Christian minister
willing to write an article rebutting Anonymous' claims?
This isn't just a point scoring exercise. What happens if Anonymous'
writings influence impressionable minds and lead them to believe God
sanctions violence against children?
I'm arguing for a more balanced view that is representative of
mainstream Christianity rather than that of a fanatical minority.
CANAANITE COPOUT
John H Williams
(Investigator 137, 2011
January)
I reassure Kirk Straughen (Letters, #135) that his writing on the
‘Canaanite Holocaust' has not gone unheard.
Those who have "a fundamental belief that the Bible is the Word of God"
are inclined to rationalise its horrors, part of the all-encompassing
YHVH/Yahweh/Jehovah myth, and attempt to justify the morally
indefensible.
A reading of some parts of the OT will dispel the idea of a "jealous"
deity that Israelites believed was theirs alone was "loving and
merciful": instead, it sometimes behaved in a ruthlessly cruel way,
much like the survivalist, then aggressive and expansionist Jewish
culture which conveniently sanctioned the idea of justifiable genocide
through the anthropomorphism of its god.
The victors wrote their history subjectively, with nil dissent from
rival tribes they made extinct, a retrospectively written defence of
invasion and conquest. In the words of Yehuda Bauer, Professor of
Holocaust Studies at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, "As a Jew, I must
live with the fact that the civilisation I inherited encompasses the
call for genocide in its canon."
I remember a 1960 major court case, brought under the UK's Obscene
Publications Act (1959), which put on trial Penguin's unexpurgated
edition of DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928). I
wondered,
considering what I'd learnt about the lethal and violent happenings in
the Bible, why children were encouraged to read and accept supposedly
true unexpurgated mayhem, while a story about a fictional illicit love
affair was regarded by some as obscene.
The "deafening silence" that Kirk decries will continue, as the hideous
reality can only be sanitised by the most dexterous air-brushing: the
‘I Am That I Am' god, which evolved to become the mythical Christian
god, ‘was', at times, amoral and genocidal, apparently ‘approving' the
erasure of Baal-worshipping Canaanites.
The "Christian minister" Kirk mentions, if one can be found, may
theodicise, unless he or she happens to be a Jack Spong or an Honest to
God liberal like John Robinson, James Pike and Don Cupitt. There's a
wide political spectrum: so too with Christian ministers, and liberal
thinkers are outnumbered by fundamentalists, conservatives and
traditionalists.
Kirk needn't fret about those "impressionable minds", since they first
have to believe in a supernatural being, and many don't; some
indoctrinated, literal-minded, misled and misinformed youngsters
eventually grow up and realise that all demons, ghosts, (eg the Holy
Ghost), gods, fairies, angels, jolly seasonal visitors and the like are
fictional stories some adults like to tell their young.
By transmitting these memes, part of children's enculturation, one
generation helps prepare the next for a mendacious world, reinforced,
in my case, by Sunday school, church and a bible reading, prayer and
hymn every school day, in incomprehensible Welsh on Fridays, my lot for
seven years, plus a steady diet of my Dad's platitudinous lies, such as
"The devil makes work for idle hands …" and "Cleanliness is next to
godliness."
In my opinion, Kirk's many cogently and dispassionately argued articles
in this magazine have been influential and valuable.
John H Williams
Is the Biblical God Good?
Kevin Rogers
(Investigator 138, 2011
March)
In Investigator #133 Kirk Straughen argued that a good God
cannot be
reconciled with the God of the Bible, especially the God of the Old
Testament. Worst still, the Bible creates precedents for people or even
political leaders to make silly decisions that may have disastrous
consequences.
Kirk quotes 1 John 4:8, where it states that God is love. In other
words, love is God's essential nature. Kirk then quoted 1 Corinthians
13, which is Paul's exposition on the nature of love. This chapter is
essentially targeted at human love, rather than God's love. However, it
is fair to assume that it should also be mostly applicable to the
nature of a loving God. Kirk then considered Anselm's Ontological
argument. If God exists, He must be the greatest conceivable being,
which must include love. Kirk's arguments so far are quite fair.
How then can a God of love be reconciled with the violent God of the
Old Testament? Kirk cites the case from 1 Samuel 15:1-3,
‘Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king
over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for
what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from
Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything
that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
This seems quite horrific. How can we reconcile this with a loving God?
However, before we leap into judgment, we should consider the context.
Israel's first contact with the Amalekites was at Rephidim while they
were wandering in the Sinai desert. The Amalekites attacked and killed
the stragglers; the Israelites then defeated them in a battle (Exodus
17). Deuteronomy 25:17-19 states,
"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came
out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your
journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of
God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around
you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you
shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
The book of Judges records at least 3 occasions where the Amalekites
attacked Israel when they allied with other nations during the times of
Ehud, Gideon and Jair (Judges chapters 3, 6 and 10). After the period
of the judges, Saul became the first king of Israel. He was given the
task of fulfilling the command given so many years before in
Deuteronomy 25. In fact the key factor in Saul's rejection as king was
his failure to completely fulfil that command. He spared king Agag and
the best of the animals!
Saul obviously didn't do a thorough job, as the Amalekites reappear
later. While David was staying with the Philistines, David pretended he
was attacking Israel but in fact conducted raids against the Amalekites
as well as other enemies of Israel. He didn't want his true activities
to be known to the Philistines, and so he didn't leave any survivors!
The last mention of the Amalekites is in 1 Chronicles 5, where the
Simeonites invaded and occupied their territory during the time of
Hezekiah (715-685 BC), thus fulfilling the prophecy of Deuteronomy 25.
The primary reason for the ban on Amalek was the judgment of God for
the event recorded in Exodus 17. However, other factors should also be
considered. Israel and Amalek were often at war and their relationship
was violent. In the Ancient Near East, there were no rules of war or a
United Nations Organization. War was a fact of life. Each nation had to
be prepared for war or it would not survive. The slaying of women and
infants is horrible, but understandable. The infants of today are the
enemies of tomorrow; and women breed infants. Israel was probably
relatively civilised compared with other nations. There is no evidence
of sadism or torture. Compare this with the Neo-Assyrian annals of
Asshurnasirpal (tenth century BC), which take pleasure in gruesomely
describing the flaying of live victims, the impaling of others on
poles, and the heaping up of bodies for display.
We are more civilised; we don't do that anymore, or do we? Most
national borders have been decided by acts of war. We Anglo-Saxon
Australians occupy Australia through violence and power. The aboriginal
population has been decimated. We fortunately live in a time of peace,
but we sanitize the basis for our occupation. We can smugly enjoy the
benefits of the dirty work done by our forbears. The problem with the
Bible is that it is too transparent.
Morality is dependent on time and situation. What was right then is not
right now and what is right now was not right then. Israel was a nation
in transition. They started off as nomads, became slaves in Egypt and
then were formed into a theocratic nation via the leadership of judges
and kings. They spent time in exile and then returned to their land
under the control of foreign powers. After their rebellion against
Rome, the temple was destroyed, their sacrificial system was ended and
Israel was scattered to the nations. The specific details of the laws
and rituals of the Torah are largely inapplicable to modern Judaism or
Christianity. They were mainly applicable to the pre-exilic times of
the Judges and the Kings. The Torah is still of value, but it must be
analysed in the context of the times in order to extract principles
that have more general application. You should not quote a passage and
assume it has universal application.
What about 1 Corinthians 13? This letter was primarily written to a
local church in the city of Corinth? Does it have wider application? It
certainly does, but its original context must be taken into account.
Where 1 Corinthians 13:7 states, "[Love] always protects, always
trusts, always hopes, always perseveres", this may be fine in a church
or family setting, but I can easily imagine some situations where it is
not appropriate. The point is that the Bible must be interpreted in its
context. You can cherry pick quotes if you like, but this method is
vulnerable to error.
1 Samuel was one of the first books of the Bible that I read to my
children. It has wonderful stories that children (and adults) enjoy. It
certainly has its fair share of violence. However, strangely, my
children were not damaged by the experience. My children are not
violent at all. It is not their life's ambition to kill Amalekites or
anyone else. They somehow managed to intuitively understand the stories
and their meaning and also perceive something about the nature of God
and the morality that is applicable to them.
So far I have covered understanding of the context and determining
applicability, but can 1 Samuel be reconciled with a loving God? The
Bible provides very little in the way of explanation or justification
for some of these statements. We are expected to think it through for
ourselves. Paul recommended, "Behold both the kindness and severity of
God" (Romans 11:22). "Behold" means "Look"! The God of the Bible is
multi-faceted and nuanced. He is not a doting, sentimentalist whose
greatest desire is for our happiness. The God of the Bible addresses a
wide range of life's issues. This includes love, mercy and forgiveness
as well as death, evil, suffering and judgment.
The views of the typical believer are pertinent. When a believer
encounters an issue such as this, it may puzzle or perplex them to some
degree, but not sufficiently to "knock them off their perch". The
reason is that they have a perception of the total character of God
from the whole Biblical narrative. There are some things that they do
not understand, but they have overall confidence in the character of
God that He can work it out and resolve all loose ends. Christians
believe in a final judgment where God will judge everyone according to
their deserts. In the face of the impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah,
Abraham asked, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Indeed
He shall.
The Bible is quite vulnerable to misrepresentation, misinterpretation
or misuse. You need to study it carefully in order to interpret it in a
reasonable manner. Romans 9:33 says, "I lay in Zion a stone that causes
men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall". So, stumble if you
must. No one will stop you, for God has given you both the
responsibility and dignity to make choices that have eternal
consequences.
THE CANAAN CONNECTION
(Investigator 138, 2011
May)
Anonymous
Mr Williams claims that my exposition of the Bible's account of Canaan
was an attempt to "rationalize its [the Bible's] horrors" and "justify
the morally indefensible".
The obvious lesson from the Old Testament's account is that:
•
Only God has the right to command the extermination of certain peoples;
and
•
Only on moral/ethical grounds for the good of the entire world;
•
Only if the targeted population itself practiced, and so approved of
"genocide"; and
•
Only after giving the target population several centuries to repent.
These criteria condemn all massacres of populations in history and
declare all genocides wrong. And that is not a "horror" or
"indefensible".
The threat was that Canaan occupied the "centre of the world" and
standards that prevailed there would become the worldwide norm. Those
standards included sexual intercourse of everyone with anyone including
children with parents and animals with people, human sacrifice, slave
raids, religious prostitution, mutilation of captives, buggery of
captives, etc.
By replacing Canaan's population with Israel the result would
eventually be "blessing to all the nations of the earth". (Genesis
22:18)
"Blessing" refers to contentment/happiness resulting from such benefits
as peace, prosperity, equality in justice, good relationships, long
lives, good health, security, etc.
"Blessing" mediated to all humankind through Judaism and Christianity
and benefiting the modern world include an end to, or reduction in, the
following:
•
Infanticide;
•
Idolatry;
•
Slave raids and slavery;
•
Child prostitution;
•
Religious prostitution;
•
Mutilation of children to make them effective beggars;
•
Mutilation, enslavement and buggery of prisoners of war;
• The
Roman games;
•
Human sacrifice.
Benefits mediated include the establishment of:
•
The principle that children should not be punished for crimes of
parents;
•
Freedom as distinct from slavery;
•
Pensions for ordinary people;
•
Hospitals and healthcare for the general population;
•
Thousands of charitable ministries;
•
Modern science and technology.
Future benefits include the end of death and pain (Revelation 21:4),
human rule of the Universe (Hebrews 2:5-9), and the power to make
everything imaginable possible. (Genesis 11:6) The Canaanite way of
idolatry would have left the human race in permanent degradation and
misery until extinguished by asteroid or comet impact. (2 Peter 2:6;
3:10-12)
The military operation to replace the Canaanites also followed the
rules of war the Canaanites believed in (except for rape of women and
buggery of the defeated) — a case of judged as they judge.
To justify his accusation of "biblical horrors" Williams needs to
praise and justify the practices listed in the first list, and badmouth
the benefits listed in the second.
For further detail the reader should read the entire debate commencing
Investigator #132. Williams did not read it carefully for he is
implying that Israel should have been exterminated instead of
Canaanites, producing a world dominated by barbaric evils.
Skeptics versus the Bible on this website --
hundreds of articles; dozens of debates: