The blog Thomisic Bent has been doing a series lately on why it was perfectly okay for God to command the Israelites to slaughter entire ethnic groups in the Old Testament, even down to the women and children. I’ve felt obliged to comment on all of them, because toward the end of my time as a Christian I began to realize just how heinous these stories are. Could you imagine God commanding something like the shootings in New Town, CT? As crazy as it sounds, what the OT suggests is even more horrific.
Thomistic Bent’s latest post, “Holiness and the Justice of God,” continues his rationale for accepting some of the Bible’s most blasphemous claims about God. Here’s an an excerpt:
As long as we compare ourselves to each other, we can convince ourselves that we’re not so dirty, and it’s really the other guy who needs a bath. But when we truly see how holy God is, we suddenly know how dirty we are…
God is patient, but will eventually demand a separation. In God’s terms, this is Hell, which is a separation from God, away from His good graces, a place where we can have what we want, to be left alone.
So we all deserve separation from God. But what if God were to select some, clean them up, and give them another chance? If He takes some of the filthy rags and cleans it up, He is not bound to take all the filthy rags.
So is part of the answer with God’s actions with the Canaanites. If God acted the way He does in the rest of the Bible, then we can conclude that He likely gave them plenty of notices about what He expected, and plenty of chances to change. The Canaanites refused, so He ordered all of them separated from Him into Hell.
Meanwhile, we sit around and compare one of them with the other and with ourselves, and say some of them are not so bad, for it seems to us that they did not do much wrong. We feel this way because we are comparing the Canaanites to ourselves, comparing one filthy rag with another. But if we, or the Canaanites, were to realize how holy God is, we would all, along with Isaiah and Peter, beg God to cast us away, for we are all deserving of separation. Only by God’s infinite mercy do any of us have a chance to change our ways.
Using this kind of logic, I could make the same case about dogs. When you compare one dog to another, there’s little difference. But when you compare a dog to a human, it’s suddenly quite clear that dogs are filthy, stupid, and completely uncivilized. That’s why we are well within our rights to wipe out all dogs. It’s what they deserve for not being as clean, intelligent, and civilized as we humans. In fact, the dogs would completely agree with us, if they could ever come to understand just how much better than them we really are. If we decide to spare any dogs, it only shows how merciful we are.
Does that really make sense? Or is it more rational for the higher being to accept the lower being for what it is? What’s even worse, when we think about this in terms of God, is that he supposedly created us to be exactly the way we are. If he’s all powerful, he could have given us the same level of perfection that Jesus had so that we would be able to live more perfectly and be more pleasing to him. Instead, he purposely handicapped us, and then decided to reject us because of the same handicap. He wants us to hate ourselves, merely for the “crime” of being what he created us to be. What kind of monster would operate in such a way?
The problem with people like the writer of Thomistic Bent is that they unquestioningly accept whatever the Bible tells them without really thinking about its implications. And I should know — I used to operate the same way. If you dig back far enough into this blog, you’ll see what I mean. But the problem with that position is that God himself has not told the writer of Thomistic Bent that all these things actually happened, or that he would have approved of them even if they had. No, these stories were passed down from generation to generation before being written down by mere men. We don’t have the original copies. And all the copies we have are divergent in certain areas. And God didn’t hand us a list of which books were authentic — that was decided by groups of men. At every step along the process, the books of the Bible have mankind’s fingerprints all over them… why in the world would we still assume that they contain the actual words of God, especially when they contain such disgusting barbarism and attribute it to him? Not to mention this type of vengeful God was typical for ancient Canaan.
Look, guys like the writer of Thomistic Bent mean well. They think they’re performing a public service by warning us about the scary sky-monster that they worship. They believe that the Christian god is very real, and their definitions of goodness, morality, justice, and mercy have been contaminated to the point that they can read everything about God in the Bible and not see it as contradicting those qualities. It’s a sad and dangerous state to be in. It’s religious fundamentalism. And while we look at the perpetrators of events like 9/11 as warped and backward, they were merely the fundamentalists of a different religion. If Christians believe that it was just for God to command the slaughter of an entire nation of people, down to the very last infant, then we can only hope they never begin to believe that he commands something similar for today.
I wish people like this would realize that even if the Christian God is real, he created us with the ability to question and reason. Even some passages in the Bible talk about the value of questioning things. If they could only apply those questions to the Bible — a collection of books that they agree were written by men, many ages ago — then maybe they would begin to see the problems in the Bible for what they are. If there really is a God, and he really does possess the qualities of goodness, morality, justice, and mercy, then such an honest, objective search for truth could only be pleasing to him, even if it leads someone away from religion altogether.
Finding Truth 
UnkleE,
you wrote,
“But I have asked you several times for your explanation of how ethics can actually occur in a naturalistic or atheistic universe, and you haven’t done so. I’m not complaining about that, just pointing it out.”
Ethics can occur in a universe without God. Its just in such a universe they are not absolutes.
However, in the same sense. Ethics aren’t really absolutes even in a universe where God does exist, at least not in a universe of the Christian God.
For example,
God decrees that Thou shalt not Kill – this seems to be an ethical absolute.
However, God also asks His people to kill other tribes.
Now is this then an ethical absolute?
So ethics is still then based on opinion. Its just in one case it is the developing opinion of a collective society. In the other case it is the All Powerful decree of God, but it is still Gods opinion, even if that Opinion equates as truth – since He is The Creator.
So either case you have ethics, and in either case you have an opinion and The Opinion. Ethics still exist; the only difference is where people believe it come from.
And ethics still develops. After all, Christians believe that based on the actions of God it is no longer required that we sacrifice animals or refrain from eating pork.
Sorry if I keep repeating myself, but this topic seems to keep coming up, and I don’t really find it to be as complicated as it has been previously presented.
Maybe I’m just not considering it closely enough.
LikeLike
G’day Ryan. Yes, that’s what I meant. I had said it several times, and I left the “objective” off here.
I don’t see it as an absolute. I’ve heard that “kill” in tis context may be better translated as “murder”, which gets us into what makes some killing murder and not others.
I think the absolute or objective ethic is much simpler – Jesus said it: “Love the Lord your God with your whole self and love your neighbour as yourself”. Provided we understand the Greek word used means self-giving and gracious love, then we have got it. (Note: Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, but this is the Greek translation that we have.)
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE,
I appreciate that if God exists and He expresses a Commandment, then it is not only Opinion – It is Truth, since it is a Commandment decreed by the Author of Life.
LikeLike
So killing is considered murder only when it –
(1) has not been decreed by God?
(2) Was acted in self defense?
(3) is a penalty for a crime?
LikeLike
Sorry I’ll retype that
So killing is considered murder only when it –
(1) Has NOT been decreed by God?
(2) Was NOT done in self-defence?
(3) Was NOT a government-sanctioned penalty for a crime?
LikeLike
I don’t think precise definitions of these things are possible. The legal system tries to do it, but there are always grey areas. Jesus’ teachings seem to indicate that God judges by the intention as well as the action, and anything not done out of faith and love is wrong.
LikeLike
UnkleE
Yeah I can see where you are coming from,
If God judges the heart, then it is more about the spirit than the letter of the Law. So the focus is then more on the intent behind the words, and not just a literal adherence to the word. That does make sense to me.
Thanks,
LikeLike
“Say a puppy was introduced to a family. As the puppy grew up it developed affection for that family. The puppy, when it got older, then began to protect that family by yapping at the other dogs and strange people who walked past their house. Now how is this puppy’s preference to this particular family objective? Does this make this family more special than the other family across the road?”
—————————————————————————————————
When I was using this puppy example, I wasn’t suggesting that our attachments and connections to friends and family are any less meaningful or valuable. I just think it’s important to consider that humans are not necessarily beyond this sort of conditioning.
Also, a theist believes that God has placed them within a particular community, and has given them certain relations; therefore the people around them have also been placed there through Gods Grace. This can contribute to a different outlook on the value of relationships.
LikeLike
ok, maybe all theists may not believe this, but I assume many Christians do.
LikeLike
The Bible is rife with contradictions.
Good post.
LikeLike
Sorry, I was reading the comments and can’t find a way to reply directly to UncleE’s comment re atheists.
1) Good post.
2) @ UncleE: By now I’m seriously confused. Why should atheists not have ethics? Ethics are not exclusive to deists. Also, what is your definition of a “naturalist”? And a “determinist”? (I thought, determinism was a specific theory in psychology, pertaining to the way a person acts/reacts.) By “naturalist” did you mean “natural scientist”, “a believer in nature and nature spirits”, “Darwinist”, or “a person who enjoys walking about au naturale“?
Caring about people has been proved to be 1) inborn and 2) to branch out, from one’s family first, then one’s close friends, neighbours, people we know, 3) then to cover our own ethnic group, and only lastly 4) to cover humankind (above, e.g., crocodiles and Great Whites but even there some people are one step ahead of me). If you had to choose between rescuing an Inuit baby and a baby polar bear, and the other one is sure to die, which one will you pick? Did you have to think about it? If you did, you’re more progressive than most people I know.
LikeLike
Noun 1. naturalist – an advocate of the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms
philosopher – a specialist in philosophy
2. naturalist – a biologist knowledgeable about natural history (especially botany and zoology)
natural scientist
phytology, botany – the branch of biology that studies plants
zoological science, zoology – the branch of biology that studies animals
biologist, life scientist – (biology) a scientist who studies living organisms
(Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/naturalist)
determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible. Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace, in the 18th century framed the classical formulation of this thesis. For him, the present state of the universe is the effect of its previous state and the cause of the state that follows it. … (100 of 249 words)
(Source: Encyclopedia Britannica)
Psychology:
Orectic psychological determinism is the view that we always act upon our greatest drive. This is often called psychological hedonism, and if the drive is specified for self-interest: psychological egoism.
Rational psychological determinism claims that we always act according to our “strongest” or “best” reason.
(Source: Wikipedia – our bestest mostest usedest Omniscient Wic.. I mean Dictionary.)
LikeLike
G’day gipsika
“Why should atheists not have ethics?”
I think atheists should, and generally do, have ethics. My question is whether those ethics have any objective basis or are just personal to them and cannot be used to judge others. And if they say they are objective, can they explain how they came to be objective? I don’t have any problem with your comments about ethics being inborn, my questions remain whether or how such inborn ethics could be objectively true.
“Also, what is your definition of a “naturalist”? And a “determinist”?”
My definitions are those which I believe are generally used. Naturalism is the belief that “reality is exhausted by nature”, i.e. the natural world we can experience and measure with science is all that there is. Determinism is the belief that “every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature”. (These definitions come from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
LikeLike
Hey Nate,
I know we can only focus on one topic at a time,
but I don’t think this illustration is accurate.
you wrote:
“Using this kind of logic, I could make the same case about dogs.”
I don’t think this example fits, since dogs do not process things in the same way as us.
If a dog bites someone, unless it sees a person act aggressively as a response, a dog soon moves on to other things, such as food, or fetch 🙂 its remorse does not seem to carry on beyond
When human beings harm one another or do something wrong, the conviction of this goes beyond how people respond to it. We innately know something is wrong, even if we rationalise it.
Dogs don’t seem to process things in the same way. Human beings have a different sort of self awareness it seems, that allows us to understand that we may have harmed someone, even if the signs are not apparent.
you also wrote:
“If he’s all powerful, he could have given us the same level of perfection that Jesus had so that we would be able to live more perfectly and be more pleasing to him. Instead, he purposely handicapped us, and then decided to reject us because of the same handicap.”
I see it that we have been created in such a way that we are invited to follow and be transformed through God.
Ryan.
LikeLike
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the comment!
I see what you’re saying, and of course, you’re right about the differences between us and dogs, which highlights the limits of my analogy. However, the blog post I was responding to (at Thomistic Bent) justified God’s command to kill all the Canaanites by saying that if we could understand how bad we are in comparison to God, we would see that such actions are completely justified. To make this argument is to say that we can’t understand the gravity of our offenses. So it’s not that we knowingly choose to be so vile, it’s that we can’t really help it. And in this way, I do think my analogy fits.
I have a dog who sometimes gets out of our backyard. And when she does, she occasionally finds some animal’s poop to roll around in. Just loves it, apparently. As you can imagine, I can’t stand it. And I have to bathe her before she can come back into the house. Despite how much I hate it and think it’s disgusting, she can’t imagine what would be wrong with it. It’s just part of her nature. She doesn’t mean to be offensive, even though she most definitely is.
I think this makes for a pretty good analogy. I could beat her, shout at her, kick her, and even do more heinous things, like torture. But would that be just? Would it be right to inflict that upon a creature that doesn’t even realize she’s really done anything she shouldn’t have? And even if she’s gotten the idea that I don’t like it, she still doesn’t understand the gravity of it the way that I do. Does that give me the right to kill or maim her?
I said:
To which you said:
Have you seen this happen? Do you know any Christians who have achieved and maintain a state of perfection? And even if you do, why do you think God decided to create us without this quality, since without it we are considered guilty?
Thanks!
LikeLike
I was discussing this topic with someone the other day and either he or i (cant recall which) commented on how some believers have defended the OT’s depiction of god slaughtering nations, to include their women and children, by saying that since all life belongs to god, it’s perfectly fine for him to do with it what he pleases, even to slaughter it.
neither of us found this compelling. Perhaps all lives do belong to god, but if he finds all life to be precious (and the bible would have us think he does), and if his creation is to think it is also precious, then god laying waste to lives, and even sweet baby and toddler lives, then at the very best it’s like an extremely rich man burning his $100 bills in front of the exceeding poor.
Perhaps the rich man can do as he likes with his own cash, but even so, at the very least it’s a jerk move to do so in front of others who had a use for it and placed great value in it.
Having baby’s hacked to pieces is not merciful by any stretch of the imagination. Severing the heads of terrified toddlers after they’ve witnessed the gruesome demise of their parents and siblings is never justice. Doing all of that and then keeping the virgin girls for themselves is not love.
Either god is not merciful, just or loving, or the bible (at least the OT) doesn’t accurately depict god.
LikeLike
Those are good points William and a great analogy with the rich man.
LikeLike
William, I think you’ve said it well. I’m not sure whether or not there is such a thing as objective morality, but the bible claims there is and it makes a mockery of the very objective morality that it’s trying to claim.
LikeLike
Nate, I actually love this analogy. It fits really well with my understanding of God and humanity.
LikeLike
I lean more toward this explanation of OT, and even some NT, writings.
LikeLike
Josh,
I’ve been trying to really consider positions like the one you have or that UnkleE has regarding the bible, and while I dont identify with it, or even really find it compelling, I do think that maybe I am beginning to understand it a little better.
Is it that you can maintain your faith in the bible, despite some serious problems or issues, because you realize that men are fallible, and that it would then stand to reason that their part in assembling and composing the bible would have errors?
And then when it comes to how can you know which parts are from god and which parts of from man, it’s that you view good and evil like light and dark, as in the distinction between the two are perfectly obvious?
I am tempted to dismiss this line of thought all together by suggesting that if man can identify right and wrong inside the bible, then man is also capable of deciding right and wrong without the bible; but i suppose that may be over simplifying things. Jesus said he came to save the lost, like a doctor treats sick people and not healthy people, so i guess you’d view the bible as being necessary to light the paths for those who couldn’t figure it out on their own.
Is this getting close to decoding your position?
Like I said earlier, i still dont identify with it and i can still some holes that keep me from buying in, but i do think i am beginning to understand it better… maybe.
there are still some parts of the bible I think on often and try to apply. In other words, leaving the faith didnt mean that i can no longer find value in teh bible, it just means that i dont think god had anything to do with it.
LikeLike
william-
I certainly don’t want to speak for unkleE. So, this what I write is just my perspective. I look at the “Bible” similarly to how I look at any collection of writing about a person. If you look at a number of authors’ accounts of the life of, say, George Washington, you’d see a number of things that are similar across accounts. You’d also see a number of things that are dissimilar or even contradictory. You can see this even today despite all of our instant recording capabilities. I could show two videos of the same person interacting in different situations and you’d swear they’re not the same person. So, yes, I allow for human error in the recording of what God is “like”. Beyond that, even, the only way we have to talk about God is in an anthropomorphic way, as we do any nonhuman species. That doesn’t necessarily make the conversation invalid, just that we have to understand that our language and human perspective will never perfectly resemble that of another kind of being. In terms of deciding what is true in scripture and what is not – that can be difficult. I look at how strongly pronounced grace is preached by Paul, and I can see threads of that even in amongst the brutal OT. It’s not a perfect understanding, and certainly has holes. The more I read and study, that continues to stand out to me. My personal experience and faith confirm this. Flawed, certainly, but it’s where my journey continues to bring me.
LikeLike
Josh, this is sort of where I have difficulty understanding this sort of position, because if you treat it like any other book, and if you see the problems in it, like you would in many other works of man, then why not just think of it as a product of man like you do with all other books?
I know this is rehashing old ground, so we don’t have to delve into it again, but as I try to look at this through your eyes, this is one of the things that keeps popping up in my mind.
Instead, at this point, i suppose i’d rather simply agree with you that one could live a righteous life by following the bible as long as they tossed aside the parts aren’t just or that are rather heinous.
I hope you enjoyed your christmas and I wish you a happy new year.
LikeLike