If God is love, how do we explain the Old Testament passages where he commands the Israelites to eradicate entire groups of people, even the children (Josh 9:24; Num 31; 1 Sam 15)? Sometimes people say it was to punish these people for their evil practices, like child sacrifice. Well, child sacrifice is certainly a terrible thing. But does it make sense to punish child sacrifice by killing all the children?
Let’s think about this for a moment. When cultures engaged in child sacrifice, it’s not because they just loved killing children — it’s because they believed it served as some kind of propitiation, appeasing their gods for the greater good. So if God didn’t approve of child sacrifice, what seems like the most rational way to deal with it: (1) kill everyone, including all the children you don’t want killed, or (2) make yourself known to these people as the one true god and tell them that child sacrifice is not what you want? Wouldn’t option 2 be a win-win scenario?
Here’s something else to consider. If God didn’t like child sacrifice, why did he command Abraham to offer his son Isaac as one? Granted, he stopped the sacrifice before the boy was killed, but isn’t this a weird command for a deity who despises child sacrifice? And what about Psalm 137, where the inspired writer is lamenting Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem and says the following:
8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,
Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
9 Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!
Furthermore, if God wanted the Canaanites destroyed because of their heinous practices, why stop at Canaan? There were many cultures that engaged in terrible practices like this from time to time — why not send the Israelites to slaughter them all? Instead this “judgment” is only brought against people in the same geographic location that God wanted the Israelites to inhabit:
After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to pass that the Lord spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, saying: 2 “Moses My servant is dead. Now therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them—the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you. 6 Be strong and of good courage, for to this people you shall divide as an inheritance the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.
— Josh 1:1-5So they answered Joshua and said, “Because your servants were clearly told that the Lord your God commanded His servant Moses to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you; therefore we were very much afraid for our lives because of you, and have done this thing.”
— Josh 9:24
How strange that these passages focus on taking the land from the Canaanites and not on their evil natures…
As a final consideration, even if the only thing left to do with these evil Canaanites was kill them all, does it make sense that God would choose the cruelest and most agonizing way to do it? Instead of speaking them out of existence, or immediately striking them all dead, he has them besieged by invaders. They’re forced to watch their loved ones being massacred before being hacked to death themselves. Would God really command this?
How does a god who would command genocide on this scale differ from the vilest despots of the modern era? What’s the difference between this god and bin Laden? What’s the difference between a god like this and a devil? Could a god this bloody be right?
Finding Truth 
Mike / TBlacksman, I can honestly say I have enjoyed your exchange with Nate on this post. Because of the level of civility on both ends, I have tried to understand the subject from both sides.
It sets the tone for the rest of us .
LikeLike
SOM said:
But if God is the creator of this universe, why do you suppose he created it with that inherent suffering?
LikeLike
Nate,
One can’t really know why God created the universe the way he did.
But one can reason out that life would not exist unless God created the universe the way he did.
LikeLike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the reply. I actually agree wholeheartedly with your example of a loved one killing someone. If one of my children did something like that, then I would behave exactly as you described. So I do understand why you view these passages this way — thanks for expressing it the way you did.
The reason I see it differently is that I don’t believe that laughter, love, families, character, etc come from a god — I think they come from other people and our human nature. I know that religions teach that god(s) created all of that, but this is basically the question we’re trying to resolve. Even if I did see those things as evidence for god, I don’t know what would make me connect the actual God to the god of the Bible. For me, passages like the ones we’re talking about here indicate that these gods are not the same. I don’t see the behaviors described in these passages as lining up with a god that can be described as all-good and all-loving.
Again, I know we won’t agree on this point — I’m just trying to explain why I see it the way I do.
LikeLike
I disagree. And if the universe had to be created this way for life to exist, how can Heaven be different?
LikeLike
Nate,
That an atheist would disagree with reason, scientific findings and intellectual tradition is not surprising.
And you dig yourself an even deeper hole because you make a claim with zero explanation.
Whatever the atheists proclaims is true simply because the atheist proclaims it.
How can Heaven be different?
Read my last comment. I explained exactly how.
LikeLike
Ok, SOM. Though I’m not sure why you bother discussing things with non-believers if we’re so unreasonable.
LikeLike
Nate,
Why don’t you bother explaining why you disagree?
And since you were the one who asked me a question I was glad to bother answering it.
I just don’t understand why you had to ask the same question twice.
It’s like you guys pop in and out of an alternate universe.
LikeLike
Actually, I don’t think you have answered. You said that suffering was necessary for life to exist, but you haven’t said why. If you’re going to make such a claim, I would assume that you have reasons for it?
And I disagreed with this part of what you said, just to be clear:
LikeLike
‘Again, I know we won’t agree on this point — I’m just trying to explain why I see it the way I do.”
With all due respect your point to me is garbled. Half of it is written from the perspective of God being God and the other half is of him not being real. its conveniently nip and tuck in places to make your argument more persuasive but its not a rational approach. It allows you to raise a point in the text one moment and then to jump out of its context. If you believe Moby Dick is fiction fine then its fiction but to complain against the wickedness of Ahab in whale hunting as an argument against Moby Dick being real and /or rational and then sliding out the contextual reasons within the book for Ahab doing what he does is just not straight shooting. its just picking and choosing trying to have your cake and eat it or in this cake eat it and throw it away at the same time.
To be honest and not merely inflammatory the whole thing just smacks to me of emotional rhetoric and theatrics. You don’t believe any of it happened and its just a way for atheist to charge their non belief with emotion to win people over. Its like don’t believe the story of Moby Dick because Ahab would be an evil man to do such a thing but you don’t have to worry about the justification in the context of the book because after all its not real. Its talking out of both sides of the mouth when you could just say its fiction and be done with it
the context of the book is that the God that created everything including laughter, love, friendship children, family, self sacrifice, beauty etc did this thing. You can’t just take it out of that context as it suits you.
LikeLike
Would it be inappropriate to say that Star Wars isn’t real because the technology is too advanced, people use magic, and Jar-Jar Binks is just too… well, Jar-Jar Binks?
Or to say that Santa isn’t real because someone couldn’t actually cover the entire world in one night and because reindeer don’t fly?
I think it’s appropriate to point out what seem to be contradictions in the narrative. If God is described as having certain characteristics, but then acts in ways that appear to be the opposite, he becomes too contradictory to be real (to me). Or at the very least, one or more of those accounts isn’t true — either he isn’t really all-good and the embodiment of love, or he didn’t actually command those things. That’s why you see people like JudahFirst explaining why she doesn’t take these passages at face value, despite being a Christian. You explain it by saying that he had reasons we may not understand, and his other characteristics cause you to give him the benefit of the doubt. That’s cool — it’s just not how I see it.
LikeLike
“Or to say that Santa isn’t real because someone couldn’t actually cover the entire world in one night and because reindeer don’t fly?”
Sure but what does the have to do with a moral objection that Santa clause is evil because he ties up reindeers. Wouldn’t you have to consult the story to see why it is that he ties them up and the reason before you can conclude he is evil.
” That’s cool — it’s just not how I see it.”
This has nothing to do with how you see it. It has to do with having some internal integrity to your argument. You can’t with integrity accept the text without its context of who it is talking about.
“Or at the very least, one or more of those accounts isn’t true — either he isn’t really all-good and the embodiment of love, or he didn’t actually command those things. ”
False limited choices are fallacious….Or he had a very good reason to have those people erradicated since he’s God and knows the future.
LikeLike
“That’s why you see people like JudahFirst explaining why she doesn’t take these passages at face value, despite being a Christian. ”
Sorry but Judahfirst is no authority on the text. Citing someone agreeing with you hardly means that you have a valid point. If that were so no one would have an invalid point since error is shared in most cases.
” You explain it by saying that he had reasons we may not understand, and his other characteristics cause you to give him the benefit of the doubt”
and you accepted such a logic unequivocally as it relates to your loved ones so if we analyzed that we could properly conclude that you never saw God as a loved one since this gave you issues while supposedly being a believer
LikeLike
Well, I never saw God at all. No one can demonstrate he even exists (hence all our conversations), which is very different from the relationships we have with other people.
LikeLike
“Well, I never saw God at all. No one can demonstrate he even exists (hence all our conversations), which is very different from the relationships we have with other people.”
What a ridiculous answer.
So you are saying that as a BELIEVER (since this gave you a problem when you were alllegedly one) the reason God didn’t get your benefit of doubt as any loved one would is because you could not see him and didn’t know that he existed.
Curious Nate. What does believer mean to you?
LikeLike
@Kent
Unfortunately, there are no degrees of virtuosity or religious veracity. It is all crap, based on erroneous text and fallacious doctrine. ALL OF IT, be it your god or someone else’s.
And sadly, the foundation of lies it is built upon is often taken to the literal extreme by may religious sects.
Whereas you may scoff at the Flood you are perfectly at home with the the character, Jesus of Nazareth turning water into wine or the Virgin Birth, perhaps, and most certainly the Resurrection.
Remember, your acceptance of what you consider benign Christianity stems from a rotten root that murdered a great many for wrong belief and is still poisoning the minds of children across the globe.
There is no right religious practice. It is ALL false.
LikeLike
Arc,
If God is Author of Death. How the death were something different? Either way, the person who die can not rise again, will perish, will decomposed, decayed.
So, as you there a VAST different, can you explain that to me.
Of you want to teach me in context of the different between murder and die due cancer?
FYI Sis, I talk about the Author of Death, not medical nor civil law point of view. But if want to speak in that context, than I need to agree the are a VAST different. Get the topic right 1st.
LikeLike
Arch,
So, I believe you don’t have imagination. I think you live black and white system, where all idea have 2 answers, right and wrong. Interesting place, where do you stay?
LikeLike
Portals,
My views? I write in point facts.
Fact that every may agree.
1) Everyone will die/ perish. [Fact that we know]
2) No one will know how to die, either car accident, cancer, poison, murdered, etc [Fact that we DON’T know]
3) We want have a comfort death with family members around, still depend on person view [Fact that we HOPE we can achieve]
Additional religious view:
4) Even we die are look “peacefully” (in mosque, church, etc), it don’t necessary you will live afterlife peacefully, vise verse. Or we die horribly, it not necessarily you live afterlife horribly. [Fact that TOTALY UNKNOWN]
Issue,
5) As most of the facts death is Unknown so why need to think about it too much. Just prepare it everyday, every time. Preparing don’t necessary think about it 24H/7D. If death come, you prepare you thing afterlife with good deed and a person you left behind.
Issue of Murders/ War and Blood-Shed.
6) This issue is not about death, it about life.
7) A death people can not solve this issue, only a person who live can solve this issue.
8) How to prevent it? Is a matter how how we live the life. Be morale, promoting good deed, solve the issue. This on going problem.
9) Some stupid ppl think, if they think about death, the war will stopped. BULLSHIT.
GOD and Death.
10) God is Author of Death, how or who or when or what, it was His job, past, present and future. How/ What the method of dying is His Job.
11) Our duty is to lives. If you sick, eat medicine. If there are a war, prevent it.
Conclusion
Why I need to think or worried about how God take people life?
I don’t need to think. My roles is to live, prepare for death and return my soul to Him.
His job is giving me a life and taking my life.
I doing my job, He doing His job.
LikeLike
Hifzan, why would you ask me how I know the mind of god when I don’t know what one is and whether god is? There is no where I have claimed to know the mind of one, if I have, am open to correction. Show me the offending statement and I will definitely correct it.
I seem not able to understand what you mean by this
I don’t know what death is, the least I can say about it is cessation of all sense. And yes, it is viewed as loss of loved ones unless you feel differently.
LikeLike
Makagutu,
As I said earlier, think as “GENERAL GOD”. General means “common ideas of what and character of God should be”.
It normal, right? or, Is it death is happiness?
Death – Cambridge define as “the end of life”.
Merriam-Medical define as “the irreversible cessation of all vital functions especially as indicated by permanent stoppage of the heart, respiration, and brain activity : the end of life”
Religion view – “A soul that being pull out from body”.
All the conclusion above related to irreversible losses. If something losses, it was a normal from human to feel sad and misery.
Don’t ask simple question, this is too common.
LikeLike
Silliness of Mind, I realize that reading isn’t your strong suit, along with comprehension and thinking in general, but which of the words, “I create evil” did you not entirely understand? I’m sure there are people on the board who could help explain it to you, by speaking v-e-r-y s-l-o-www-l-y —
“Like every atheist I’ve ever encountered, you are so angry at the suffering in the world, that you respond by trying to wink God out of existence.”
That’s got to be the easiest trick in the book, winking something non-existent out of existence – “Now you don’t see it – (wink!) – now you still don’t!”
LikeLike
Silliness of Mind, RE: “The greatest mass murders in all of human history were committed by atheists precisely because atheism does absolutely nothing to address man’s tendency toward evil.”
Now you’ve confused me – are you calling your god an atheist? I mean, clearly the flood was the greatest episode of mass murder in the history of the planet, unless – unless you don’t believe it actually happened — SAY it isn’t so, Silliness!
LikeLike
KC, RE: “Nothing could be more ridiculous than an atheist quoting the Bible.”
I’m pretty sure he was talking to me.
LikeLike
Sorry Arch. Didn’t mean to steal your thunder. LOL He just happened to post that comment right after I posted mine which included scripture. 🙂
LikeLike