Blog

18 Nov, 2024

Blog

A Morally Questionable Escape Clause

The bible doesn’t condemn divinely commanded violence… but we should.

“Anyone who condones, the ‘deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing’, …should be regarded with abhorrence.” Raymond Bradley

“We trust that this book will bring insight and moral understanding to an issue that continues vex many people. We hope that sufficient light has been shed…” Copan and Flannagan 

That isn’t what I found in their book; no real insight, no moral understanding and definitely no sufficient light being shed on the issue of biblical violence. What I did find was a book so full of prevarications and morally questionable justifications that it was incredibly painful to read. We’ve covered chapters one, five and fifteen in previous blogs, so lets see what more they have to offer.

Chapter 17: Is it Rational to Believe God Commanded the Killing of Innocents?

When Professor of Philosophy Wesley Morriston says that “the reasons given in the OT texts (for the massacre of the Canaanites) are implausible and morally suspect”, (which they are), C&F spend the rest of the chapter attempting to discredit him. They write, “We have given good reason to think that the objective moral principle that it is wrong to ‘deliberately and mercilessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children’, is not an absolute.” They write that they believe God issuing the command is stronger than the grounds for thinking that killing innocents is always wrong. Simply put, if God gives the command to kill innocents, it’s okay.

This is the kind of sanctimonious rationalizing disgusts me and, “should be regarded with abhorrence”.

Chapter 18: What if Someone Claimed God Commanded Killing the Innocent Today?

In this chapter C&F quote Morriston, as saying that if a contemporary leader were to issue such a command to kill innocents, we would say that he was out of his mind and that we should treat OT divinely mandated genocide in the same way. Once again C&F use this chapter to discredit Morriston by saying that modern day “thus says the Lord” utterances are not authoritative, like those from Isaiah and Paul and therefore, should be rejected. Obviously, they have not seen the YouTube videos where self-proclaimed modern-day prophets are foretelling the coronation of a new anointed one (who happens to be a godless, immoral man) who will soon occupy the White House and bring a theocracy to America. They also foretell the complete destruction and annihilation of his enemies. Most reasonable minded Americans would agree that these modern-day prophets are out of their minds. However, if these so-called prophets were to issue a decree that they said, “came from God”, there is little doubt that their followers would, without question obey, even if it violates widely held objective moral principles.

Morriston also referred to a 2008 event in which 52 children were rescued from a polygamist sect in Texas. He then asks what if the (fictitious) governor of Texas had said that he received a divine command to completely wipe out the fundamental Mormons, by saying “Make no agreements with these people. Show them no mercy and kill them all”.

C&F discredit Morriston by saying that “we have good grounds for ruling out the suggestion about some… fictitious Texas governor who now speaks on God’s behalf” What C&F fail to grasp here is that, for christians, any command coming from someone in authority is a command from God. The book of Romans tells us that “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good… and agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” It wouldn’t matter that the governor wasn’t ‘speaking on God’s behalf’, if the decree came from someone in authority (as long as it was a republican) christians are commanded to obey. This theme also permeates human history. It would be impossible to document all the times in history that after an atrocious act was committed the subordinates claimed, quite innocently, that they were just following orders.

It’s interesting that C&F would use the example of a fictitious governor ordering an extermination, because it resembles an actual historical event. (See end note 1.)

Chapter 19: The Role of Miracles and the Command to Kill the Canaanites.

In this chapter they argue that we can know the command to commit genocide in the OT came from Yahweh, because there were corresponding miracles to demonstrate that the command came from God, such as a burning bush experience, crossing the Red Sea on dry land, a pillar of fire and manna from heaven. According to them, these miracles were validation that the command to kill innocents did indeed come from Yahweh and not someone’s “mere inner subjective sensing”. Meaning, if some modern-day prophet was to issue a command to, let’s say, exterminate all atheist, we can only be assured the command came from God if it was accompanied by some grand miracles. But as we have already seen, it wouldn’t matter. Even if it violates objective moral principles, any order from someone in authority will be followed despite the lack of miracles.

Chapter 20: Does Religion Cause Violence?

In this chapter, they quote several modern-day scholars who make the case that religion, especially monotheism is, by its very nature, violent. Obviously, C&F disagree and make their case by pointing fingers at secularist, atheists, and polytheists, which they say are equally as violent. It’s a classic case of diversion and if we read between the lines, we can see what they are actually saying. “Our religion might have a history of violence, but look at those other guys, they’re violent too.” Then in an attempt to completely divert the attention away from its violent history to something more positive, C&F say that even atheists would agree that there are some positive aspects of christianity. According to them, christianity might have a violent history but it is also responsible for influencing “human rights, education and literacy for all, moral reforms, democracy, and equality before the law.”

Wow, that’s quite a claim, which I personally believe would disappear, much like a mirage, with closer evaluation. But that’s a blog for another day.

Chapter 21: Are Yahweh Wars in the Old Testament Just Like Islamic Jihad?

This chapter is especially interesting. C&F quote several “popular writers on religion” who say that there is far more violence in the bible than in the Qur’an. C&F call their claims misleading and misguided and spend the rest of the chapter attempting to show that Islam is historically more violent than either Judaism or Christianity. They have even created a side-by-side table graphic comparing “Yahweh War in the Old Testament” with “Islamic Jihad” which for them clearly shows that Islamic Jihad is the more violent. Why this is important to their original argument is unclear. Perhaps, in their attempts to justify biblical violence, it is helpful to show that other monotheistic religions are just as violent. Something, by the way, they tried to disprove in the previous chapter. (Yahweh wars? See End note 3.)

Chapter 22: Did Old Testament War Texts Inspire the Crusades?

I didn’t even bother to read this chapter because, after the previous 21 chapters, I already knew what their answer would be. And if you’ve been paying attention, so will you.

My summary

With each chapter I read, my disgust with Copan and Flannagan’s prevarication and disturbing lack of moral integrity grew. What can you say about a person who believes that “if God gives the command, it’s okay to slaughter of men, women, and children”. It hurt my soul to read their book, much in the same way it hurts my soul when I hear white supremacists indiscriminately spewing hate at non-whites, or when overzealous patriots violently attack minorities like Asians or Muslims (both verbally and physically) simply because of something they read on the internet, or how insensitive and pious christians condemn my gay friends based entirely on only six bible verses. And the most disturbing part is that all of them will use the bible to justify their morally questionable behavior, just like Copan and Flannagan do.

By commanding and condoning (and not condemning) the massacre of the Canaanites, the bible sets a precedence, much like the issue of slavery. Since, the bible never condemns the practice of slavery, pastors in the Antebellum South used scripture to justify the practice of owning another human being (see end note 2). In like manner, the bible never condemns the slaughter of the Canaanites, and therefore, some well-meaning christians, just like in the Antebellum South, will have precedence and justification (given them by C&F) for violating objective moral principles against harming another human being.

Although, C&F repeatedly say that it is only on “rare or highly unusual occasions” that God allows exceptions to a general rule against killing innocent women and children, some of their more zealous readers will skip over the “rare and highly unusual” part and embrace the “can be overridden” part. This is the most concerning part about their book. The following disturbing statements are the underlying message of their book and should not be ignored.

  • “Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden.”
  • “On closer investigation, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable principle” Chap. 16.
  • The objective moral principle that it is wrong to ‘deliberately and mercilessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children’, is not an absolute. Chap. 17
  • “Many ethicists contend that while the claim “it is wrong to kill innocent people” is correct as a general rule, it can be overridden.” Chap. 15.
  • “God did issue an exception to the general prohibition against taking innocent human life.” Chap. 17
  • “God issuing the command to kill innocent woman and children is stronger than thinking that killing innocents is always wrong.” Chap. 17.
  • “Killing innocent women and children is not always wrong.” Chap. 16.

By saying that the killing of innocents can be overridden if God gives the command, C&F have given their readers an “escape clause” that gives them permission to violate any number of object moral principles.

Final thoughts

At one time in my life, I called myself a christian, and spent decades in a christian community, but If Copan and Flannagan’s twisted reasoning represent mainstream christianity, then I am proud to say that I am no longer a part of such a community. I want nothing to do with people who believe that “sometimes” it’s okay to kill innocent women and children. Raymond Bradley was correct when he said… “they should be treated with abhorrence and disgust”.

The following two quotes, although separated by a couple of centuries, sum it up rather succinctly for me.

“Many will be repulsed by such a god who can command the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, and might also question the sanity and compassion of those who follow such a god.” Charlie Trimm

“Copan and Flannagan’s book “is the reverse of truth, and I become so tired of examining into its inconsistencies and absurdities, that I hasten to the conclusion of it, in order to proceed to something better.” Thomas Paine

End note:

1) In October of 1838, the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs issued an “extermination order” saying that the “Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven out of the state… for the public good.” Two hundred militiamen carried out that extermination order by butchering everyone in a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill. It’s more than likely that many, if not all, of those militiamen were good christian men who were doing their duty to rid their christian community of Mormon influence. Ironically that kind of thinking corresponds with C&F’s third justification for killing the Canaanites.

  • Justification 3: Corrupting Influences and the Risk of Assimilation. We cannot risk assimilating with “those people”. Whatever threatens the purity and integrity of our religion should be taken with utter seriousness.

C&F might argue that the governor’s extermination order was not divinely given, but to the militiamen, it made no difference.

Nineteen years later, the Mormons (now in Utah) in an eye for an eye sort of fashion, retaliated by attacking a wagon train of non-Mormon settlers from Arkansas, who were not guilty of any wrongdoing except trespassing on Mormon land. (Which, by the way, is C&F first justification for killing the Canaanites.) The story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a twisted web of deception, corruption, and coverup. It is unclear who gave the order, but when the federal government showed up to investigate the massacre, Prophet Brigham Young denied any involvement, and instead, pointed a finger at militia leader John Lee and said, “The time has come when they will try John D. Lee and not the Mormon Church, and that is all we have ever wanted.” John Lee, surprisingly enough, was the only person arrested for the massacre. He was convicted in 1876 and executed in March 1877 at Mountain Meadows.

Once again C&F might argue that the command to slaughter the Arkansan settlers did not come directly from God, but to the Mormon militiamen, who were undoubtedly religious men, it made no difference. The order was given by someone in authority in their religious community and they obeyed it without question and thus slaughtered 120 trespassing gentiles.

2) Some of the arguments for slavery that were used by pastors in the Antebellum South really were quite compelling. If you haven’t actually read them, you should. See my previous blogs for more on this topic.

3) C&F’s referring to the conquest of Canaan as “Yahweh wars” is both misleading and deceptive. Numbers 31: 48-49, says that the officers of the army took a census and reported to Moses that not a single man was missing. Hmmm, let’s see, one side is completely annihilated (except of course for the young virgin girls) and the other side doesn’t lose a single man. That is not war, that is a massacre, plain and simple.  Verses 50-54 tell us that the booty of this slaughter was 16,750 shekels of goal. This biblical narrative shows us that it was not a holy or just war, it was a mass genocide carried out for land and for riches. And one more thing, verse 54 tells us that Moses and Eleazar took all the gold for themselves and called it a “memorial before the lord”. How convenient!

Coming next:

There is little or no archaeological evidence to support the historical narratives of the conquest of Canaan. So, what if it never actually happened? Would that let Yahweh and christians off the hook for genocide? We’ll explore that idea more in the next blog.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

10 Nov, 2024

Blog

Guilty of Not Being Innocent

How Theists Justify the Final Solution of the Canaanites

Theists will try to show that our moral principle that it is wrong to “deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”, is either inapplicable to the situation or that they present exceptions which would absolve God of violating it. Raymond Bradley

No sooner said than done!

“God on rare or highly unusual occasions allows exceptions to a general rule against killing (women and children) for the sake of some greater good. Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden in rare circumstances of “supreme emergency”. Copan and Flannagan

In this blog we’ll explore the validity and problems with Copan and Flannagan’s (supreme emergency) exceptions to Bradley’s non-negotiable moral principles. It should be noted before we begin that C&F’s book “Did God Really Command Genocide” was most likely written for a christian audience, who needs reassurance that God did not command genocide. They repeatedly reference the bible (66 times in chapter 5) and treat it as an authoritative resource whose validity is not to be questioned. However, a careful reading of their book reveals that many of their proposed ideas, in defense of Yahweh, are the product of false assumptions and unsubstantiated beliefs based on ancient religious writings.

Also, C&F employ the expression “Bradley’s Crucial Moral Principle”. I have changed that innocuous phrase to more closely match Bradley’s original moral principle. See my previous blog for a further explanation.

With that said, let’s see how they defend the reputation of Yahweh.

Does the Bible Portray the Canaanites as Innocent?

This is the title and topic of chapter 5 of C&F’s book. We can already see where their argument is going.

Atheist Raymond Bradley says that ‘it is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”. In addition, Bradley says that Yahweh, as portrayed in the bible, does indeed command others to violate that objective moral principle, therefore, according to Bradley, the god of the bible is immoral.

Copan and Flannagan counter by saying, “At best, Bradley’s argument shows that at one point in history God commanded Joshua to exterminate every single Canaanite man, woman, and child in the land he had given his people. What should be clear, however, is that God does not command us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.”

Wait, what? God commanded Joshua to exterminate every single Canaanite man, woman, and child, but “God does not command us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”?

Those two statements appear to be not coherent with each other. How could C&F say that God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites, and in the next sentence say that God does not command the deliberate slaughter of men, women, and children. I struggled with these conflicting statements, but then I got it. I had been focusing on the first half of the moral principle; the “extermination and slaughter” part, but C&F are focused on the second half; the “innocent of any serious wrongdoing” part. For theists, this changes everything.

“Merciless slaughter is not how the biblical text portrays the situation.”

Blaming the Victim

C&F continue, “merciless slaughter is not how the biblical text portrays the situation. While it may be plausible to suggest that some Canaanite individuals, particularly Canaanite children, are innocent of any crime, the Bible does not portray the Canaanites in general as innocent of… wrongdoing.”

By saying that the Canaanites were guilty of not being innocent, C&F can state, (apparently in good conscience) that slaughtering them did not violate any objective moral principle. Atheists like Raymond Bradley and Dan Barker would disagree, and so do I.

To support this “they deserved it” justification, C&F present what they call “three features of the (biblical) narrative” which, according to them, will clearly show that the Canaanites (children included) were not innocent. Let’s be perfectly clear here. When C&F use the innocuous phrase, “three features” it really means “three justifications”. Changing the wording doesn’t change the fact that they are justifying the deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children, and using the bible to do so.

We saw in a previous blog that some christians use New Testament theology to justify Old Testament genocide, however C&F use Old Testament narratives to the same end.

So, what exactly were the “supreme emergency exceptions for the greater good” that C&F use to negate the general rule against killing innocents? Just how were the Canaanites guilty of not being innocent? It’s not as complicated nor as ancient as you might think.

  • Justification 1: Israel’s Legal Ownership of Canaan: (i.e. We want your land. It’s our land that was given to us by our god and you’re trespassing.)
  • Justification 2: Israelite Refugees and the Sins of the Amorites (i.e. We are refugees who experienced hundreds of years of oppression in a foreign land, and we need a place to live. The Canaanites are a people of unrepentant wrongdoers.)
  • Justification 3: Corrupting Influences and the Risk of Assimilation (i.e. We cannot risk assimilating with “those people”. Whatever threatens the purity and integrity of our race should be taken with utter seriousness.)

By presenting exceptions to rule against killing innocents, C&F have done exactly what Bradley predicted in his essay. They are attempting to absolve Yahweh of the annihilation of the Canaanites as found in the Old Testament. In this blog, we’ll take a closer look at C&F’s first justification, which according to them, supports the idea that the Canaanites were guilty of not being innocent.

Justification 1: Israel’s Legal Ownership of Canaan

“Hence, when Isreal is commanded to attack these nations, they are not… conquering or attacking an innocent nation and stealing their land; rather Israel is repossessing land that already belongs to them and evicting people who are trespassing on it and refusing to leave.”

The inaccuracies of this statement are simply astounding. You’ll notice that C&P didn’t say that “God commanded” the Israelites to attack these nations. They instead use a passive phrase, “when Isreal is commanded”. This is a significant difference. In my previous blog we saw that in chapter one C&F write that it wasn’t God who commanded the deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children, it was some “secondary (unnamed) human author”, thus relieving Yahweh of culpability.

What’s amazing with C&F’s first justification is that they never question the validity of the stories in Genesis where Yahweh supposedly gives the land to Abraham. For them, Genesis (all of Genesis) is historically accurate. They write, “Israel’s title to the land is reiterated several times in the proceeding narrative. In Genesis, God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendants.”

 

 

‘The whole land of Canaan… I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you.’ The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, and the Creator promises a portion of that earth – the land of Canaan – to Abraham and his descendants, then they are the rightful owners of the land.”

 

 

But is that narrative an actual event or mere folklore? C&F treat it as an actual historical event, so it’s not surprisingly, they use expressions like “the Israelites had ‘legal title’ to the land”, and the Canaanites were “trespassers” who did not acknowledge the Israelite’s claim to the land and refused to leave. The Israelites were simply “evicting people” who were trespassing on their land. C&F frequently use modern concepts to explain ancient events. So, let’s look at the modern definition of “legal title” to see if it applies to the biblical narrative.

Legal title: Absolute ownership of real property that is evidenced by a written deed that is recorded in the public records and enforceable in a court of law.

It’s nothing short of silly to say that the concept of “legal title” applied in ancient times. Did the Israelites present the Canaanites with a 400-year-old written document, (signed by Yahweh and Abraham) as evidence for their “legal title” to the land? Did the Israelites serve the Canaanites with an eviction notification that was approved by some ancient court? Had there been some sort of ancient court of law, would the Israelites been able to prove that the Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for 400 years, were actually trespassing?

C&F’s “legal title” defense gets even more implausible. They say that Abraham took possession of the land by walking across it. They write that Yahweh allegedly told Abraham to, “arise, walk about the land through its length (500 kilometers) and breadth (100 kilometers); for I will give it to you”. Gary Anderson, a professor of catholic thought, notes that “walking across a piece of territory in such a fashion has often been understood as the legal custom of formally taking possession; hence, in this passage, by divine decree, Abram gains legal possession of Canaan.”

So, are we to believe that Abraham gained possession of Canaan by walking on all of its 50,000 square kilometers of land? So, let me see if I got this right. According to C&F, the Israelites were the true owners of the land because their patriarch allegedly walked through the land some 400 years earlier. And when the current occupants of the land refuse to acknowledge the Israelites right to the land, the Israelites “evicted the trespassers” by exterminating them.

Would this mean that if someone, by walking across my front lawn could “gain legal possession” of my property? Or better yet, what if they said that their grandfather had walked on the lot before houses were built there and therefore his family had legal title to my property? And if I refused to leave, they had the right to kill me and take what they said was rightfully theirs? This scenario is ridiculous, I admit, but it is the basis for C&F’s argument.

For C&F’s proposition to merit any kind of validity the historicity of the Genesis narrative must be proven. It’s one thing to say that according to the bible Yahweh gave the land to Abraham, it’s quite another to provide evidence for it from sources outside the bible. This is important.  Since christians are using this story to justify acts of genocide, it would be nice if their justification for slaughtering men, women, and children, was based on the truth and not folklore.

Since it is clear that the bible, and specifically the book of Genesis, is the only reference used by C&F to support their claim of divinely gifted land, we must conclude that their argument is based solely on false assumptions and unsubstantiated ancient religious writings and thus invalid.

This sums it up pretty well.

“Theists will try to show that our moral principle is either inapplicable to the situations or they will present exceptions which would absolve God of violating it. Anyone who condones, the ‘deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing’, …should be regarded with abhorrence.” Raymond Bradley

“While it may be plausible to suggest that some Canaanite individuals, particularly Canaanite children, are innocent of any crime, the Bible does not portray the Canaanites in general as innocent of wrongdoing. Hence, when Israel is commanded to attack these nations, they are not… conquering an innocent nation.”  Copan and Flannagan

In the end, Copan and Flannagan’s attempts to discredit atheist Raymond Bradley have failed. What has become clear, however, is that by holding onto the belief that it is wrong to slaughter men, women, and children, atheists hold the moral high ground. Theists, on the other hand, by saying that sometimes it’s okay to slaughter men, women, and children, have claimed the moral low ground. All they have to do (to ease their conscience), is to show that the Canaanites were guilty of not being innocent.

Coming next:

 The bible doesn’t condemn divinely commanded violence, so Copan and Flannagan don’t either.  Not only are they letting Yahweh off the hook for genocide, but they are also providing their readers with an escape clause to the moral principle that it is wrong to kill innocent men, women, and children. Is this inadvertent or on purpose?

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

20 Oct, 2024

Blog

The Problem of Pious Prevarication

Rational discussion with persons who contradict themselves is impossible; if contradictions are allowed then anything goes.

Prevaricate: verb: to deviate from the truth; to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression.

Christian authors, Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan in their book, Did God Really Command Genocide? go to great lengths to exonerate Yahweh from any culpability for the passages in the Old Testament that look suspiciously like genocide. In their first chapter (inaccurately entitled The Problem Clarified) Copan and Flannagan (C&F) explore the argument of atheist philosopher Raymond Bradley, who wrote an essay in 1999 entitled A Moral Argument for Atheism which discusses, what he called, “objective moral truths”. He believes that the Bible clearly reveals incidents where Yahweh violates those objective moral truths.

As might be expected C&F’s objective is to discredit Bradley. In this blog, we will address how Copan and Flannagan, in their attempt to exonerate Yahweh of genocide, are guilty of prevarication. (It always amazes me how theists defend their truth by using prevarication.)

Let’s look first at what Bradley writes.

Objective moral truths.

Here, now, are a few examples of moral principles that I take to be paradigms of objective moral truths:

  • P1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.
  • P2. It is morally wrong to provide one’s troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.
  • P3. It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.
  • P4. It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise.
  • P5. It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

“On all of these examples, I would like to think, theists and other morally enlightened persons will agree with me. And I would like to think, further, that theists would agree with me in holding that anyone who committed, caused, commanded, or condoned, acts in violation of any of these principles is not only evil but should be regarded with abhorrence.”

God’s violations of our moral principles.

In this section of his essay, Bradley gives specific examples from scripture showing that the God of the bible violates all five of these moral principles. He writes, “But now comes the linch-pin of my moral argument against theism. For, as I shall now show, the theist God–as he supposedly reveals himself in the Jewish and Christian Bibles–either himself commits, commands others to commit, or condones, acts which violate every one of our five principles.”

A logical quandary for theists.

Bradley continues, “These–and countless other–passages from the Bible mean that theists are confronted with a logical quandary which strikes at the very heart of their belief that the God of Scripture is holy. They cannot, without contradiction, believe all four of the statements:

  1. Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible.
  2. The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.
  3. It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.
  4. The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.

The trouble is that these statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one. Thus, one can coherently assert (1), (2), and (3) only at the cost of giving up (4); assert (2), (3), and (4) only at the cost of giving up (1); and so on.

The problem for a theist is to decide which of these four statements to give up in order to preserve the minimal requirement of truth and rationality and logical consistency.

After all, if someone has contradictory beliefs then their beliefs can’t all be true.

Changing the Narrative

We shall see that C&F, by making subtle, but significant changes to Bradley’s original statements, are able to eliminate any contradictions. Not surprisingly, their subtle (and dishonest) wordsmithing changes everything. Compare Bradley’s original statements (above) with C&F’s (below).

Copan and Flannagan write, “We believe that (Bradley’s) argument should be rephrased as follows:”

  1. Any act that God commands us to perform is morally permissible.
  2. God is the author of the Bible.
  3. It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.
  4. The author of the Bible commands us to perform acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.

Since Bradley is an atheist, I doubt he would approve of the changes C&F make to his second statement. Another change Bradley might object to is C&F’s use of the phrase “the Crucial Moral Principle.”  For the record, Bradley never uses that expression. Plus, an internet search of the phrase produces zero results outside of C&F’s book.

In paragraph one, on page one, of chapter one, C&F switch Bradley’s statement, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing,” to something more innocuous which they call “the Crucial Moral Principle.” Possibly it’s an attempt to mask the reality of what is really being discussed here: genocide. From this point on, whenever C&F use the innocuous expression “Crucial Moral Principle,” I will replace it with Bradley’s original statement.

C&F continue, “A problem surfaces: if we assume that the human author of Scripture commands us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing, then this undermines Bradley’s argument. Let’s rework things (again) to show how this is so:”

C&F continue to make even more changes to Bradley’s four statements.

  1. Any act that God commands us to preform is morally permissible.
  2. God is the (primary) author of the bible.
  3. It is morally impermissible for anyone to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.
  4. The secondary human author of the bible commands us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

Remember, if you will, Bradley’s comments that “They (theists) cannot, without contradiction, believe all four of the statements to be true.” However, with some skilled wordsmithing and a generous helping of prevarication, C&F are able to claim that their newly worded “four truth claims (propositions) are consistent and do not involve any contradiction whatsoever.”

Voilà!

This is really interesting Let’s take a closer look at their 4th statement.

“The secondary human author of the bible commands us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.”

This is an obvious attempt by C&F to let Yahweh off the hook for commanding the deliberate and merciless slaughtering of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing. By blaming the human author, whose hand actually penned the words, C&F can now redirect the blame (unsuccessfully, I might add) from Yahweh to some anonymous human author.

Just exactly who is the secondary human author of the bible that they speak of? And how does that human author “command” and who exactly is meant by “us,” when C&F say, “commands us”? Did the human author command the deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing? If so, and Yahweh didn’t intervene to prevent it, wouldn’t that make Yahweh just as guilty?

C&F continue to defend their statement by continuing their prevarication. They write,

To get a contradiction, we have to add a further premise: God’s role as primary author entails that whatever the secondary human author of the Bible affirms or commands, God likewise affirms or commands. But this argument therefore must assume a particular understanding of the relationship between divine and human authors of Scripture so that whatever the human author says or affirms is identical with what God says or affirms. Human biblical writers were not God’s typewriters nor were their words being dictated by God.

This statement directly contradicts the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which says,

“…although the human writers’ personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness ‘spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit’. Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.”

However, as we see in chapter one, C&F disagree. They write,

“But this understanding of the relationship between divine and human authors is implausible. It would be silly to say that whatever the human author says or affirms is identical to what God says or affirms.”

It would seem that C&F are calling the authors of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy silly. But the Chicago statement is very clear when they concluded that, “what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author.” Therefore, if the human writer commands genocide, then God commands genocide. Therefore, it is dishonest to switch the culpability from God to a human writer.

If we take another look at Bradley’s four statements, you’ll notice that he never mentions biblical authorship: neither human nor divine. He simply writes “The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.” That statement is completely true and needs no clarification of authorship. As we have already seen, C&F disregard Bradley’s original four statements and deceptively switch the narrative to authorship which, by the way, better serves their purpose.

Bradley, who wrote his essay decades before C&F published their book, accurately described what I discovered and experienced while reading it. He wrote,

“I shall, however, have to deal with the counterarguments of those who defend God and the Scriptures against criticisms like mine. Theistic apologists have two main strategies.

  1. Try to show that the Bible either doesn’t really say what I claim it says or that it doesn’t mean what it says.
  2. Try to show that our moral principles are either inapplicable to the situations described or that they present exceptions which would absolve God of violating them.”

It’s not surprising then, that C&F have incorporated both of those strategies. Bradley ends his discussion with this statement.

Rational discussion with persons who contradict themselves is impossible; if contradictions are allowed then anything goes.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, Copan and Flannagan’s book is filled, cover to cover, with prevarications similar to the ones found in chapter one. Had I read more carefully, when I first picked up their book, I would have recognized the deceptions in chapter one, and probably would have decided to not waste my time on such a book.

End note: For what it’s worth.

“But which of the four statements will our theist deny?” Bradley.

Christian author Charlie Trimm attempts to answer that question in his book, entitled The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide and Biblical Interpretation.

Similar to Bradley, Trimm also proposes four different statements that he says cannot all be true. (Sound familiar?) The following are Trimm’s four statements.

  1. God is good and compassionate.
  2. The Old Testament is a faithful record of God’s dealings with humanity and favorably portrays YHWH’s actions.
  3. The Old Testament describes events that are similar to genocide.
  4. Mass killings are always evil.

Both Bradley and Trimm say the same thing about their four statements. Bradley writes, “One cannot believe all four of the statements to be true without contradiction.” Trimm writes that all four of his propositions “cannot be true at the same time because of the contradictions between them.”

The rest of Trimm’s book is devoted to addressing the consequences of rejecting each of the propositions. For example, one chapter is devoted to the notion that someone might choose to reject the proposition that God is good and compassionate. Another chapter deals with believers who question the reliability of the Old Testament. It’s clear that he is answering Bradley’s question, however Trimm does not reference Bradley anywhere in his book. So, my question is, WHY NOT?

In a footnote citing his four proposed statements, Trimm cites four theists who he says, “have framed the problem with similar questions.” Without exception, all of those noted authors wrote their essays decades after Bradley’s four statements first appeared in his essay in 1999.

Given the obvious similarities in their ideas, I find Trimm’s failure to mention Bradley a bit curious. He cites Copan 10 times, so it’s obvious that he has read Copan and Flannagan’s book, where Bradley is introduced on page one of chapter one. Given the fact that Trimm’s book is very well organized and well documented, I doubt that it was an oversite on his part. My conclusion, therefore, is that Trimm purposefully left out any reference to Bradley. Think about it! What christian writer would want to expose their readers to an essay entitled, A Moral Argument for Atheism? It might be just too dangerous for some believers. Better safe, than sorry, I guess!

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

7 Oct, 2024

Blog

Did God Really Command Genocide?

Depends on Who You Ask

“Even if one thinks that they can defend this (divine violence) and live with such a belief, the social cost will be that many others will be repulsed by such a god and might question the sanity and compassion of one who follows such a god.” Charlie Trimm

Trimm’s analysis succinctly describes the case with christian authors Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan in their book entitled Did God Really Command Genocide?

Their attempts to let Yahweh off the hook for divinely commanded genocide produces numerous errors of reasoning and twisted justifications that would be obvious to anyone who doesn’t have a religious bias. At first, I decided that it would be too complicated to tackle their convoluted justifications, but then I came to chapter 15. And I had to speak out!

Walking a fine line

Copan and Flannagan are walking a very fine line. On one side, they are defending the belief that Yahweh is a perfectly good and loving god. On the other side, they are trying to reconcile the stories of Yahweh commanding the killing of innocent women and children. On one side they are defending biblical inerrancy. Yet, by staunchly defending biblical inerrancy they are faced with the position that their god is a monster. How they tiptoe that narrow line is the topic of this blog.

Chapter 15 of their book is entitled, Can One Coherently Claim That God Commanded the Killing of Innocents?

I was puzzled by the word “coherently” in the question. None of the dictionary synonyms I found seemed to make the meaning any clearer. However, I discovered the phrase “coherence of an argument” which is a term borrowed from philosophy. This is how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it.

  • According to the coherence theory of justification, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes.”
  • Coherence of the argument: identify when an argument is valid (i.e. that claims made adequately support the conclusions being drawn and are justifiable).
  • Supporting evidence: evaluate the evidence being presented, and to establish its worth (in its own right, and when compared with other evidence).

I find it interesting that the authors have moved the discussion from the heart and soul of what it means to be human, (our conscience, and our sense of right and wrong) to the sterile intellectual arena of philosophy. This is something we’ve seen quite often in our critiquing of the authors of Answering the Music Man. Whenever they lack the evidence to prove whatever point they’re attempting to make, they turn to medieval philosophy. Let’s see how Copan and Flannagan use philosophy to defend the culpability of Yahweh for the killing of innocents.

Reading their book hurt my soul. Here’s why.

Calling Right Wrong and Wrong Right.

“If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ act. . . then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed.” C.S. Cowles

“The belief that it is wrong to kill innocent people is correct as a general rule, however…” Copan and Flannagan

They begin chapter 15 by quoting several authors (including both theists and atheists) who claim that the killing of innocents is a nonnegotiable wrong that violates “our existing moral beliefs”.

Biblical scholar and theologian C. S. Cowles writes:

“If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ act. . . then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed, all distinctions between, good and evil are rendered meaningless, and all claims about God’s love and compassion become cruel deceptions. It represents the ultimate corruption of human language and makes meaningful theological discourse virtually impossible.”

Old Testament scholar Eric Seibert makes a similar claim:

“If God’s standard of justice is so fundamentally different from ours that physical abuse and the slaughter of babies can be considered just, then it no longer seems possible to have meaningful conversation about what constitutes justice.”

Atheist philosopher Raymond Bradley asserts:

“For holy is as holy does. That is to say, if anyone at all is properly to be described as morally perfect, then their acts of commission, of command, and of permission, must also be morally perfect. To say that God is holy despite the evil nature of what he does would be to play with words: it would be to deprive the word ‘holy’ of its ordinary meaning and make it a synonym for evil.”

I whole heartedly agree with the above statements. Unfortunately, Copan and Flannagan do not. Using the philosophical concept of “coherence of the argument” they claim that all of the above statements are invalid. Just wait and see how they justify the killing of innocents.

Prepare to be shocked.

“The killing of innocents can be overridden in rare circumstances of supreme emergency”

Is the wrongness of killing innocent people a nonnegotiable belief?

For secularists, (and many believers as well), the answer to that question is YES, it is nonnegotiable. However, according to Copan and Flannagan the answer is NO. They write,

“The key question is not whether the wrongness of killing innocent people is one of our existing moral beliefs, but whether it is a nonnegotiable belief. On closer investigation, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable belief.”

Wait, what? There may be some christian readers of this blog who might think I have somehow twisted Copan and Flannagan’s words. I truly wish that were the case. But they continue their argument.

“Many ethicists contend that while the claim “it is wrong to kill innocent people” is correct as a general rule, it can be overridden in rare circumstances of supreme emergency. Hence, taken as a universal, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable principle.”

“The claim that in normal circumstances it is wrong to kill the innocent is central to our understanding of morality… (and is) a generally valid principle. However, “in highly extraordinary, unusual cases in the past has God commanded such killing.”

“Once this is realized, the arguments of Cowles, Seibert, and Bradley fail. These arguments assume that the claim that it is always wrong to kill the innocent is a nonnegotiable belief. But this is false.”

It took several readings of this reasoning for it to sink in. The killing of innocent women and children is “as a general rule” wrong, but if God commands the killing, then it’s okay.

For the record, that’s not okay!

Copan and Flannagan also quote the teachings of spiritual teacher Robert Adams who makes the point that,

“God is essentially good: he possesses certain virtues such as being loving, just, truthful, benevolent, gracious, merciful, and so on. God’s possession of these traits means that it is not possible for him to command… the rape, torture (or murder) of children.”

Copan and Flannagan take issue with Adams by saying that he “is wrong because, our moral judgments can be fallible. While God does not command wrongdoing, it is likely* that a perfectly good, omniscient being would command something contrary to what we think is wrong. To say otherwise dogmatically assumes we are such good judges of morality that God could never disagree with us.”

Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden in rare circumstances of “supreme emergency”.

So, if we believe that the rape, torture (or murder) of children is wrong, our judgement can be fallible. If a perfectly good God, who does not command wrongdoing, chooses to command the rape, torture, and murder of children, then who are we as mere humans, to question the morality of such a loving God? So, according to Copan and Flannagan, Adams’ argument is invalid.

Self-proclaimed progressively evangelical (if that’s even possible) Randal Rauser offers an argument in favor of an absolute prohibition against killing innocents, saying that “adopting an absolute rule against killing the innocent actually would have better results morally than allowing for an exception based on supremely divine emergency.”

Some christian philosophers have argued that humans have the pervasive tendency to rationalize and be tempted to apply such an exception when it is not legitimate. Australian/American philosopher, Alan Donegan who is known for his theories on the nature of morality, argues that “when we allow for an ‘escape clause’ to traditional morality, nearly everyone’s moral judgment will be clouded in the heat or tension of the moment, and it is probable that much of what is done on the ground of such escape clauses will be mistaken.”

Copan and Flannagan don’t agree with this argument either. They write, “We have considerable sympathy with this argument, however…” and this is their argument, humans can make mistakes in judgement, but God cannot. Therefore, we should trust God’s ability to make exceptions for the killing of innocent women and children, because God knows best.

Geez!!!

From a secularist’s viewpoint

While christian apologists are struggling to justify this divinely given “escape clause”, it should be noted that atheists and secularist do not have an “escape clause”.

Therefore:

  • The wrongness of killing innocents is a nonnegotiable principle that cannot be overridden by some god or by someone who claims to hear the voice of God. Period!
  • There was no (and is no) “escape clause” issued by an omniscient being that allows for the killing of innocent women and children. Period!

Trimm was correct,

Trimm’s conclusion (as found in the opening paragraph) is correct about Copan and Flannagan. They may believe that they have successfully defended the divinely commanded genocide as found in the Old Testament, and maybe they can even live with such a belief. But those of us with a conscience are repulsed by their arguments. I certainly question their sanity and compassion. And I am also astonished that they can profess to follow and defend such an immoral god.

That is why the writings of Copan and Flannagan hurt my soul.

After note: From where I stand.

*I find it curious that Copan and Flannagan used the phrase “it is likely” or as the dictionary says, “it has a high probability of occurring” as in “it’s likely to rain this afternoon.” So, it’s a bit odd that they would say that “it is likely that a perfectly good being (who does not command wrongdoing) would command something contrary to what we think is wrong”, such as the slaughter of innocent women and children. Their admission that “on rare or highly unusual occasions” Yahweh allows exceptions to a general rule against killing innocents, sends up a red flag for secularists like me.

Is it “likely” that we can expect more of this kind of morally questionable behavior from Yahweh and his followers? Many christians are eagerly awaiting the second coming of Jesus. In that highly anticipated time, all the enemies of God, (meaning nonbelievers) will be eliminated and only the believers will survive. It’s not clear who exactly will be doing the eliminating, but if it’s anything like the stories in the Old Testament, men will be doing the dirty work for God. With this in mind, Copan and Flannagan’s conclusion that the killing of innocents is not a nonnegotiable belief is disturbing and quite alarming.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

15 Sep, 2024

Blog

Biblical Authority

Protecting the Christian Narrative

“The more you read the text carefully and intensely, the more mistakes you find, and you begin to see that in fact the Bible makes better sense if you acknowledge its inconsistencies instead of staunchly insisting that there aren’t any, even when they are staring you in the face.” Dr Bart Ehrman

In the previous blog we saw that the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy didn’t actually prove biblical inerrancy. The best they could actually say is that it is sufficiently accurate.

Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims… at which its authors aimed.

Okay, let’s see if I have this right, the bible isn’t really inerrant in the sense that it’s error free, it’s inerrant because its authors made some good claims? Yeah, right!

The original intent of this blog was to prove without a doubt that the bible is full of errors, untruths, contradictions, discrepancies, and fictitious stories, and therefore has no authority over anything. However, that task proved to be a bit large for one blog. I decided that it would be futile to enter into the fray of biblical inerrancy. That would take an entire book* (or more). That debate will rage on until that time when the “nones” have increased in numbers so sufficiently that Christianity is irrelevant and there are no longer any practicing christians, or until that time when Jesus returns to set up a kingdom here on earth, in which case there will be no more non-believers. Neither of those scenarios seem highly likely, so the debate over the legitimacy of the bible will continue and books will continue to be written on both sides. None of them by me.

The revised intent of this blog is to explore some of the possible reasons why evangelicals feel the need to defend biblical inerrancy so fervently (even when they failed to do so in 1978.) What has become clear to me is that the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is more about authority and power than it is about protecting the integrity of the bible.

Biblical Authority?

The authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

The Chicago statement used the word authority 27 times, so let’s start by defining the word; authority: 1) the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. 2) power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.

Fundamentalists take authority one step further by using the phrase biblical authority or authority of scripture. What exactly does that mean? Perhaps, by putting the word “bible or scripture” in front of the definition of authority we can get a pretty good idea what they are defending.

  • The bible has the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
  • The bible has the power to influence, or command thought, opinion, or behavior.

The question is, does it really? Does the bible really have the power to give orders, make decisions for us and enforce our obedience? The obvious answer is NO! There’s a bible sitting next to me on my desk. Right now, it’s pretty silent. It’s an inanimate object and has no power to do anything but sit there. It only has the power I give it, and I choose not to give it any. I could open it, read it, and allow it to control my life (like I did for several decades). But, at this point in my life, it has no power to influence my behavior or enforce my obedience, unless, of course, I give it that power. Which, of course, I no longer do. And neither should you.

 

 

(This brings up the humorous image of The Harry Potter Monster Book of Monsters. If you’ve never seen the scene from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Monster Book of Monsters is a book chosen by Hagrid. When it is opened and unleashed, it snaps, snarls, and chases its reader around the room. I have this imagine of my inanimate bible chasing me around the house, nipping at my ankles whenever I am not doing its bidding. Only then would it have authority over me.)

 

 

 

So, if this inanimate bible sitting next to me has no authority to enforce anything that’s written within it, the obvious question is, what does, (or more accurately) who does? Let’s look into that question.

Who enforces biblical principles?

According to the Chicago boys, scripture, by divine authority, is to be believed, obeyed, and embraced, but who enforces that declaration? Does God? Obviously not! God has been noticeably absent from this interaction. The Chicago boys have stated that no “normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings,” which was two thousand years ago. So, if God is not enforcing what’s written in the bible, who is? The answer is obvious, men (and sometimes women) are doing the enforcing.

Although the Chicago Boys declare that the bible is authored by God, they also admit that it was indeed written by men. They declare,

  • Holy Scripture, being God’s own word, (was) written by men…
  • However, in determining what the… writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production.

Let’s use as an example, the government we live in. There are laws at every level of government that have some kind of authority over us. These laws were written by men and are enforced by men. Not surprisingly the men who write the laws are usually not the same men who enforce them. The enforcers are hired by the state to enforce the laws. The bible and Christianity are no different. Every single word in the bible was written, without exception, by men. Then, throughout the entire history of the Judeo-Christian religion men have been appointed (or have appointed themselves) to enforce what they believe their God has written.

Defending God?

The Chicago Boys pretend to be protecting the integrity of God. But are they really? Does God even need defending? All through the document they claim to speak for God saying, “we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles,” and they defend their God because, “Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself, and to stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master.” This obvious display of piety is defending something, but it certainly isn’t God. So, what are they actually defending? Their religion or better yet, their livelihood?

There’s little doubt that Christianity needs defending. The authors of Answering the Music Man all have a master’s degree in Apologetics, and for some christian preachers, defending christianity is their fulltime job.  Think about this for a minute. Evangelicals believe that their God “created the entire universe out of nothing in six literal normal-length days about six thousand years ago. God did not need matter, large amounts of time, energy, or anything else.” That’s pretty awesome power, but fast-forward 6,000 years and we find that their god is basically absent. I find it highly improbable that this omnipotent God, who created the universe, needs the help of those 200 evangelical pastors help to protect his integrity.

Defending Christianity

So, if the Chicago Boys were not defending the integrity of their god, what were they protecting? Or better yet, what did those evangelical pastors stand to gain or lose by their statement of biblical inerrancy? It seems clear that they felt the need to control the christian narrative, (i.e. the founding doctrines and dogma of christianity.) In a nutshell here some key doctrines of the christian religion.

  • We believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth. The six-day creation account, as described in the book of Genesis, is factual, historical, and is the foundation of our understanding of the created universe.
  • We believe in the full historicity of Genesis including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people.
  • We believe that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, but they chose to rebel, bringing sin into the world. Sin then spread like a virus to all humans, resulting in a divine curse on creation.
  • We believe that every child of Adam is born into the world with a nature which is totally corrupt and without exception every man, woman and child is totally depraved.
  • We believe that all people are sinners deserving eternal punishment in hell.
  • We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice.
  • We believe that whoever, by faith receives Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is born again of the spirit and becomes a child of God, but not until then.
  • We believe those who are saved by Jesus Christ will spend eternity with Christ in heaven in a conscious state of blessedness; that those who do not personally receive Christ by faith will spend eternity separated from God in a state of conscious torment.

For evangelicals, controlling this narrative is extremely important. When I was a young christian, we were taught from the pulpit that all humans were corrupt and repulsive to God. And the only way to be called a “child of God” and be accepted by God, was to join the Jesus Club. By controlling this narrative, church leaders are in the authoritative position to decide (for God) who gets to call themselves a “child of God” and who gets to go to heaven.

Dominos

Imagine if you will, that these doctrines of christianity are set up like dominos standing on end.

The first one in line is the historicity of the creation story in Genesis 1. What might happen if christians actually faced the fact that the historicity of the creation story in Genesis is so obviously false? If the creation story falls, then the next domino in line is the story of Adam and Eve. When that story falls the next in line is the belief in “original sin.” And without original sin there is no depravity and condemnation of all mankind. And if that domino falls there is no need for a substitutionary sacrifice, and therefore no need for a savior.

It’s Game Over

It’s no surprise then, why evangelicals must defend the creation story with such fervor. If that fictitious story falls, all the other falsehoods found in the bible will fall as well. And if that happens, it’s game over for evangelicals. They will have lost their authority, meaning they will no longer hold the keys to heaven and as a result, their pews will soon be empty, as will their offering plates. Being fully aware of this possible reality, the Chicago Boys issued this warning.

“The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if biblical inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.  Such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.”

There is better, more honest way!

Let me offer a better way to look at biblical inerrancy. Accept the reality that the bible is NOT inerrant, stop wasting time and energy trying to defend it, learn to live with it and find ways to glean the good that can still be found within its covers.

Dr. Bart Ehrman puts it this way.

“For students who come into seminary with a view that the Bible is completely, absolutely, one hundred percent without error, the realization that most critical scholars have a very different view can come as a real shock to their systems. The more they read the text carefully and intensely, the more mistakes they find, and they begin to see that in fact the Bible makes better sense if you acknowledge its inconsistencies instead of staunchly insisting that there aren’t any, even when they are staring you in the face.”

End notes:

#1) I just recently found out that my former pastor from my church going days was one of the signers of the Chicago Statement. It really didn’t surprise me when I heard that. He was the one who changed the moderate presbyterian church I grew up in, into a congregation whose beliefs were increasingly evangelical, which, in turn, lead to a forced separation and expulsion from the United Presbyterian Church.

#2*) Two authors who have been extremely helpful to me understanding problems with biblical accuracy are Thomas Paine and his book The Age of Reason, and basically any book by Dr. Bart Ehrman; especially Forged and (the one I am currently reading) Jesus Before the Gospels.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

18 Aug, 2024

Blog

Biblical Inerrancy – A Pious Fraud

“But a fraud being once established, could not afterwards be explained; for it is with a pious fraud as with a bad action, it begets a calamitous necessity of going on.” Thomas Paine

Is the bible inerrant? That depends on who you ask and how you define inerrant. I get my definition of inerrant from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: inerrant: adj. free from error.  So, for people to say that the bible is inerrant would mean that it is free from error, right? Well, it appears not to be the case.

Inerrancy does not mean that every copied manuscript is free of errors — only the original texts.

 

Wait… what?

Establishing a pious fraud.

In October of 1978, over 200 evangelicals gathered in Chicago to formulate a written statement defending the position of biblical inerrancy against a trend toward liberal conceptions of scripture. The document they produced called The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is a 3,900-word document with three parts. The first part has five short statements that summarize the entire document in a little over 220 words. Part two, which contains 1,000 words is called “Articles of Affirmation and Denial”, with 22 affirmations and 25 denials. Part three, Exposition, is the longest at 2,200 words and is the compilation of their three days together.

The curious part about this for me, is why these christian soldiers felt the need to defend their god’s reputation and authority. Think of it for a minute. Evangelicals believe that their god, Yahweh, created and oversees the entire universe, is all knowing and all powerful. So, why would Yahweh need 200 men (trust me they were all men without exception) to come to his defense? If Yahweh felt the need, couldn’t he have defended himself? So why is Yahweh noticeably lacking in this interaction? Was he unable or unwilling to defend the book which he is supposed to have inspired? In a way their actions in October of 1978 were in reality a vote of no confidence in Yahweh. “God can’t handle this liberal intrusion by himself so we (his christian soldiers) must do it for him.”

I find it rather amazing how many times in the past two years, I’ve read articles written by christians for the sole purpose of defending their god for one reason or another. Wouldn’t Yahweh be perfectly capable of defending himself. Sometimes they say the silliest things when they’re defending the character of their god as seen throughout the bible. This will be the topic of an upcoming blog. For now, let’s get back to the christian soldiers of Chicago.

Inerrancy doesn’t mean without errors.

One would think that a Statement of Biblical Inerrancy would unequivocally prove that the bible is without errors. But that’s not exactly what they do, as we can see in the following statements.

  • Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching.
  • We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
  • Inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

But later in the Exposition segment of their document it seems that the writers had to face an inconvenient truth: the bible is not inerrant in the sense that it is not (according to the dictionary) “free from error.”

  • Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards…
  • The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements, or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another.
  • God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture.
  • It is necessary to… maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips (500,000 of them at last count) that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.
  • (It is a) fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
  • No translation is, nor can be perfect…

According to New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are (by last count) some 5560 copies in the original Greek language of the New Testament, all of which contain errors. He writes,

  • “All of these surviving copies are different from one another, giving different wording for this verse and that verse, up and down the line, page after page over the entire New Testament. We don’t know how many differences there are among our surviving copies but they appear to number in the hundreds of thousands. Most scholars think that there are some 300,000 or 400,000 differences among these copies. [Now we think there are up to 500,000!]”

It’s important to remember that we’re not saying that the copies differ from the original text. No autographic original text has survived that we can compare with the copies. The 500,000 number is how they differ from each other. How’s that for inerrant?

Sufficiently Accurate?

So how do evangelicals reconcile this inconvenient truth? Christian writer Timothy Paul Jones in an online article entitled “Why we can still trust the Bible, despite manuscript differences” says this,

  • Is it true, then, that the biblical manuscripts differ from one another? Of course they do! The copyists were human beings, and being human means making mistakes. God did not choose to override the copyists’ humanity as they copied the New Testament; as a result, these human beings were every bit as prone to short attention spans, poor eyesight, and fatigue as you or I.

It’s important to point out that the original autographic writers were also human beings and prone to human mistakes as well. In addition, why don’t we have a single autographic copy of any biblical scripture? God in his infinite foresight could have seen this debate coming, right? As you might imagine, Jones has a solution to that issue too.

  • Of course, one might wonder why God chose to preserve the text in this manner. Why not just preserve the autographs? Why didn’t God just allow Christians to keep the autographs sealed away in a vault somewhere?
  • It’s possible that God may have not wanted the autographs to survive. One can imagine how easily (and quickly) such documents would become objects of veneration, if not worship. They might have become the equivalent of Gideon’s ephod —a good gift the people begin to treat as an idol.

How does Jones know what “God chose to do or not do? It’s clear to anyone without a religious bias that he is completely making this up. And if that’s not enough, he goes on to say this about God directed inspiration of scripture.

  • “Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. … Copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” (Which we do not have!)

Not a single autographic text has survived. For example, the earliest fragment of the book of Mark that has survived, dates to the beginning of the third century. Meaning, that fragment of Mark is a copy of a copy of a copy that had been copied year after year for 14 decades. So, how do we know that any of the over 5,000 Greek NT copies that we have “faithfully represent the original” if we don’t have the original to compare them with? We simply can’t, and any statement to the contrary is an untruth.

It’s hard to judge Jones for this attempt to justify errors in the bible. He’s only doing what his evangelical beliefs dictate. He does deserve some credit for acknowledging the errors, that’s more than most evangelicals will admit, but then he rationalizes them away with the flimsy argument that “God inspired the original writer but not the copyists.” Weak!

He continues,

  • This means the original manuscripts of the bible (of which we have none) were fully God-breathed and therefore without errors. God inspired the authors of Scripture and safeguarded their words from any mistakes. God did not, however, prevent the thousands of copyists across the ages from making mistakes as they copied the manuscripts. As a result, the surviving copies of Scripture are sufficiently accurate for us to recover the inerrant truth that God intended and inspired, but they have not always been copied with perfect accuracy.

Notice that we have gone from completely inerrant to sufficiently accurate. One must ask, if it was so important that the “god-breathed” original manuscripts were without error, why did God not make any effort to keep them that way? Notice that Jones calls the surviving copies of a copy of a copy “sufficiently accurate… to recover the inerrant truth that God intended.” So now, the “truth is inerrant” even though the bible is not. Hmmm, that’s an interesting twist. Maybe that level of reasoning is acceptable in evangelical circles, but anyone without a religious bias would see that statement for what it really is… untrue. (You thought I was going to use another word, didn’t you?)

Is your bible inerrant?

Even though their church’s mission statement might say that the bible is inerrant “in the original text,” the average christian has no idea what that really means. They are unaware that none of the “original texts” have survived the passage of time. Some might think that “original text” means that the bible is inerrant in the original Greek, yet there are hundreds of thousands of discrepancies between different copies of the Greek bible. Nevertheless, I can say with confidence that every evangelical christian believes that the bible they carry with them to church on Sundays is “inerrant.” But is it?

I can accept that average christians believe what they are told about biblical inerrancy. Most of them don’t know any better. It’s the 200 christian soldiers who wrote that Chicago document and their modern-day counterparts who are propagating the little white lies of biblical inerrancy. If evangelicals were being honest with themselves (and others), their statement of Biblical Inerrancy might read as such.

  • “We affirm: Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture for a short period of time was inerrant, (until the first copy was made), but what we now have is full of errors because God chose not to intervene with the copyist. We can’t really affirm the statement that ‘what Scripture says, God says,’ but we choose to adhere to it anyway, because our authority would be damaged if inerrancy were disregarded. Therefore, we cannot declare scripture to be “completely inerrant,” but we can, without hesitation, declare scripture to be ‘sufficiently accurate.’ May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.”

Jones even puts a number to it. He says that “according to scholars’ best estimates, the English New Testament text is more than 92 percent stable.”

It’s kind of like being consistent. There are no degrees of consistency. You can’t be kind of consistent or consistent most of the time. You are either consistent or you are not. It would be silly for someone to say that they are consistent 92% of the time. In the same manner, scripture is either inerrant or it is not. Saying that it is “sufficiently inerrant” is a conflict of terms and frankly, downright deceptive.

We’re not making this stuff up! We promise.

The following affirmation and denial are taken from the Chicago Statement.

  • We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.
  • We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Let’s see what the internet has to say on this topic.

  • “The Bible itself does not claim to be inerrant. The doctrine of inerrancy is more post-biblical, even modern. And it has been particularly influential among U.S. evangelicals, who often appeal to the doctrine of inerrancy in arguments against gender equality, social justice, critical race theory and other causes thought to violate the God’s infallible word. The doctrine of inerrancy took shape during the 19th and 20th centuries in the United States.”  The Conversation.com
  • “As already observed, not all theologians and church historians agree that biblical inerrancy has… been a central church teaching among Western churches. Indeed, during the past forty years an influential historiography (study of history) has emerged arguing that biblical inerrancy is a doctrinal innovation of American fundamentalism, itself portrayed as a doctrinally innovative movement and thus suspect. As late as the 1970s, most evangelicals assumed that biblical inerrancy was one of their nonnegotiable and the most basic fundamental of beliefs.”  The Gospel Coalition
  • “According to McGrath, “the development of ideas of ‘biblical infallibility, or inerrancy’ within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century”. Wikipedia.org

Well, that took all of three minutes to debunk.

Liar, Liar pants on fire!

I’m always reluctant to call someone a liar. Someone might believe something even though it’s not factual or true, (like a six-day creation story or the historicity of Adam and Eve). It might be a bit delusional but if they profess to truly believe in the untruth, then I will refrain from calling them liars. Case in point, I would not call Jones a liar. He is clearly restating what he has been told to believe is true, but I don’t think he’s being dishonest. He’s only doing what his evangelical beliefs dictate. But the Chicago group saying that biblical inerrancy has been a part of church history for its entirety and was not invented by scholastic Protestantism as a reaction to negative higher criticism is a bold face lie because they knew it wasn’t the truth and said it anyway. That’s dishonest and qualifies them to be called liars!

As a former christian it upsets me when christians purposefully profess some grand idea while knowing that it’s a lie. Why do they do that? I’ll bet that in 1978 those christian soldiers never imagined a world where such a collection of knowledge could expose their deception so quickly. I wonder if they would have been more careful now days knowing that with a couple of clicks anyone could reveal their falsehoods. Feeling disgusted and angered.

Final note

What does a dictionary built from the bible up have to say about inerrancy?

In my very first blog back in February of 2022, I critiqued a christian writer who believed that an evil adversary was out to destroy our civilization by (you won’t believe this) redefining words. He claimed that all modern dictionaries were playing into this sinister plot, and he pointed to the Daniel Webster 1828 dictionary, which he called “a dictionary build from the bible up” as the only true source for definitions. It’s online now, so I went there to see how Webster defined “inerrant.” To my great surprise neither “inerrant” nor “inerrancy” was in the 1828 dictionary. Meaning, of course, that biblical inerrancy was not an issue in the early part of the 19th century. It is indeed a creation of modern-day fundamentalism.

“Liar, liar pants on fire.”

Coming next:

In the next blog we will explore why biblical inerrancy is so important to evangelicals. Hint: it’s all about power.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

5 Aug, 2024

Blog

Biblical Inerrancy in Peril

“The most Barker’s criticisms can accomplish is to diminish inerrancy.”

In chapter 13 in his book godless, Dan Barker writes this,

“Paul said that ‘God is not the author of confusion’, yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible. There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the ‘inspired Scriptures’ to prove their conflicting doctrines. Why is this? The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when… it causes so mush discord?”

Thomas Baker, co-contributor of the book Answering the Music Man called Barker’s list of biblical contradictions “shameful” and suggested that Barker purposefully ignored proper context, in order to support his atheistic agenda, (something we’ve seen Baker do to support his theistic agenda.) He wrote that he was astonished that Barker’s errors were so obvious that it reminded him of “a small child who is angry with his parents and lashes out irrationally, taking their words out of context.”

This begs the obvious question. If Barker’s errors were so obvious why did Baker feel the need to respond at all? Or for that matter, why did he feel the need to write a 9,100-word defense? It must be because Baker is at least a little bit concerned that Barker’s list of contradictions is convincing enough to possibly sway some christians.

Perhaps it would help us to gain some context if we knew who Baker’s audience is? Of course, it’s not elite christians like the authors of “Answering” who have all studied medieval philosophy. They don’t need Baker’s piece to protect them from atheists like Barker. The vulnerable ones are the average christians whose only knowledge of what’s in the bible comes from what they hear from the pulpit. These are the kinds of christians that could potentially be swayed by Barker’s examples of biblical contradictions.

And for that reason, only 460 words into his 9,100-word defense of biblical inerrancy, Baker makes two extraordinary statements. The first one, which villainizes atheists, is not all that surprising because christians do that regularly anyway. The second statement, however, borders on shocking. We will deal with each statement separately.

Statement one:

“At the outset, one thing should be kept in mind since we are dealing with atheistic critiques of the Bible: attacks against biblical revelation cannot diminish the arguments for the existence of God from natural theology because those arguments are not based on biblical revelation.”

Supposing that Baker is writing for average church going christians, then the obvious objective of this statement is to convince them that any atheistic critiques of the bible are completely invalid. This, by the way, would be another way to avoid the inconvenient truth of biblical contradictions. In addition, you can almost hear the deep resentment in Baker’s statement. Change just a few words and it becomes crystal clear how christians view atheists.

“At the outset, one thing should be kept in mind since we are dealing with infidels who criticize our holy book: Their attacks against our holy revelation cannot diminish the arguments for the existence of our God because those infidel arguments are not based on holy revelation. Off with their heads.”

So, let’s read between the lines of Baker’s statement. Basically, he’s implying something like this. “Those godless, foolish atheists are criticizing our holy book… again. They can criticize ‘God’s holy word’ all they want but they cannot weaken our belief in the existence of OUR God because of natural theology. Those atheists don’t even believe in God, so every criticism they aim at God and the bible is invalid from the start and doesn’t merit further consideration.”

Of course, the average christian has no idea what Baker means by “natural theology,” but that won’t matter to them. It sounds righteous, and if a christian with a PhD says it’s a good thing then they believe it. But in reality, natural theology, it is not such a good thing. (See after note 1.)

Also, Baker’s co-contributor in Answering, Kyle Keltz wrote that natural theology is beyond the reach of unaided reason and that “only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence and attributes.” He maintains that “only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology.” Why Baker would even mention natural theology in his argument, when he believes that average christians are not capable of understanding the concept, is a mystery to me.

Perhaps, Baker is simply hoping to keep average christians from even considering Barker’s arguments. And it just might work. When I was a young christian, I was ignorantly fearful of secular humanists; something which was encouraged from the pulpit on a regular basis. I recently wrote a blog explaining what I learned for myself about secular humanists and what they actually believe. I had been lied to. They really aren’t all that scary and for that matter, neither are atheists. (see end note 3)

Statement two

Baker’s second statement is nothing short of astounding.

“For those who are swayed by the negative criticisms of the Bible, the most these criticisms can accomplish is to diminish inerrancy, but contrary to atheists’ assertions, the biblical criticisms cannot prove that God does not exist. Hence, regardless of the nature or status of the Bible, they do not remove the metaphysical need for a First Cause”.

Once again Baker is demonstrating that he has spent way too much time studying medieval philosophy and not enough time studying logic. As I’ve said many times while critiquing the authors of Answering, if a theist wants to discredit an atheist the easiest way to accomplish that would be to prove the existence of their god. It’s that simple.

But none of the authors of Answering do this. Four articles and 32,000 words later and I have yet to find one hint of evidence that supports the existence of their god. Baker is no exception. The closest he comes to giving evidence of God’s existence is “First Cause.” Is this the best he can do? (For more about this medieval philosophical proof for God, see end note 2.)

For an evangelical like Baker to say that “the most these criticisms can accomplish is to diminish inerrancy” is simply astonishing. Christianity is like a house of cards, carefully stacked and fervently defended. If the card of biblical inerrancy is pulled, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down with it. This is why christian gatekeepers defend biblical inerrancy with such ferocity.

There are serious consequences for even hinting that the bible might not be inerrant. Baker could be banished from christian circles. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy clearly states,

“The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.”

Another comparison would be that this is like an experienced chess player sacrificing the queen to protect the king. It would only be attempted in extremely desperate situations. Biblical inerrancy is the queen and God’s existence is the king. If the queen is surrendered, checkmate is only a few moves away. Forfeiting biblical inerrancy is game over for evangelicals. Perhaps Baker felt that Barker’s list of biblical contradictions was convincing enough to warrant such a desperate move.

In his last paragraph he expresses hope that his brief (?) article would give christians “pause before considering any apparent contradictions.” And he encouraged them to “not be quick to judge the bible with errors.” He admitted that some issues of apparent biblical contradictions might require “a deeper analysis into the original languages” (something which no average christian would be able to do). But he assures them that with his superior knowledge he has yet to “meet an issue in the bible that does not have a reasonable interpretation that is consistent with biblical inerrancy.” (This coming from a man who believes in a six-day creation story, and the historicity of Adam and Eve.)

The average christian can now rest at ease. Elite christian gatekeepers like Baker have saved them from having to read Barker’s list and deciding for themselves. Proving once again that ignorance is bliss. And even more importantly, biblical inerrancy is back on the throne.

All is well in Christendom.

End notes:

Natural theology.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Natural theology.

“The question of whether natural theology is a viable project is at the root of some of the deepest religious divisions: Shi’ite verses Sunnis; Roman Catholic verses Protestant. Unlike most of the topics discussed in an encyclopedia of philosophy, this is one over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut.”

First Cause:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about First Cause.

“Thomas Aquinas believes that natural reason can demonstratively prove God’s existence. The first step is to show that, for everything in the changeable world around us, there is a first cause, or prime mover, in virtue of which all other things have their existence, their motion, their qualities and direction”.

According to medieval philosophy, if A changes B, and B changes C, and C changes D, and D changes E and so on and so forth, the question for philosophers is, what, if anything, changed A? If we presume that A started the changes and we don’t know what (if anything) changed A then by reason, A=God.  Therefore, if you’re living in the Middle Ages, “this everyone understands to be God.”

I may not have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I’m certainly not an intellectual elite, (like the authors of Answering the Music Man), but I’m not buying this as proof of the existence of a god. And this is the best that Baker can produce as evidence?

There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates

if the question were one of evidence rather than philosophy.” Dan Barker

Scary atheist

Okay, I will admit that YouTube atheist Aron Ra is pretty scary looking. Also, there’s Matt Dillahunty, who can be mean and caustic sometimes (okay, most of the time). If you want to debate with Matt, you better bring your A game and know what you’re talking about. If you attempt to talk over him, he will let you know in no uncertain terms that, “it’s his f***in show, and you’re a dumb ass!” That might be pretty scary for most theists. But there are other atheists such as the Friendly Atheist and the Thinking Atheist who are gentler, kinder versions of atheism. Most secularists are nice people too, so don’t be afraid to befriend one of us. It might just change your life for the better.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

29 Jul, 2024

Blog

Batter Up

Taking a Swing at Biblical Contradictions

Another Answering the Music Man contributor steps up to the plate to take a swing at Dan Barker’s list of biblical contradictions and discrepancies. Will he hit a home run or strike out? We shall see.

As I have noted in previous blogs, one would think that the easiest way to discredit an atheist is to prove the existence of God. But that’s not what any of them do. Ferrer didn’t like Barker’s definition of atheism. Keltz didn’t like Barker’s definition of faith. Lewis defended and justified biblical slavery and genocide.

So far, the score is Barker 3, theists zero.

Now it’s Thomas Baker’s turn to step up to the plate. Baker is taking on the tough issue of Barker’s claim that the bible is full of contradictions. Like most (if not all) of the contributors of Answering the Music Man, Baker has an MA and a PhD from Southern Evangelical Seminary and teaches Theology and Apologetics at Veritas International University. (Notice the obvious lack of any schooling that is not affiliated to evangelicalism. We’ll talk more about that later.)

Dan Barker writes,

“Everyone knows that the bible contains accounts of miracles, and that is reason enough to conclude that there may be better uses of one’s time than studying Scripture.”

When addressing biblical contradictions with theists, “We get these tortured point-by-point defenses of the ‘inerrant word of God’ from fundamentalist preachers and other Christians who think the discrepancies can be explained. What they lack in logic they make up for in length.”

And so, it is with Baker. What he lacks in logic he makes up for in length. The ironic part of Baker’s response is that in his attempt to discredit Barker, he inadvertently does the opposite and proves Barker’s point. He spends the majority of his 9,166 words trying desperately to show that Barker’s lists of biblical discrepancies can be explained by simply using context. In the final paragraph of Baker’s lengthy diatribe he writes, “Finally, my hope is that this brief (?) treatment will give you pause before considering any apparent contradiction.” First off, he wasn’t successful being brief and we’ll have to see if his arguments actually succeed in convincing anyone other than fellow evangelicals that biblical discrepancies can be explained away.

Before we begin with Baker’s defense of the inerrancy of the bible, let’s take a look at what he personally believes. His bio says that he is an Associate Professor at Veritas International University. If we take a look at Veritas’s mission statement we can get a good idea of what Baker most likely believes. (Imagine what fun atheist Dan Barker would have with this!)

Baker believes:

  • The six-day creation story is factual and historical.
  • The literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall in the Garden of Eden and resultant divine curse on creation.
  • The worldwide cataclysmic deluge (flood), and the origin of the nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
  • Those who are saved by Jesus Christ will spend eternity in a state of bliss.
  • Those who do not personally receive Christ by faith will spend eternity in a state of torment.
  • There is a real personal devil.
  • Sexual relationships outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage are both unbiblical and immoral.
  • God’s established order functionally places man as the head of woman.
  • The Bible is the Word of God, and is verbally inerrant in the original text, and remains infallible. Therefore, it is the supreme, final, and authoritative standard for faith, theology, and moral decisions.

The problem I have with evangelicals like Baker is that the above statements are “truths” for them, from which they cannot be swayed. It seems pretty clear that whenever someone starts with a truth (even if it’s not really true) and rejects any evidence that doesn’t support their form of the truth, it assuredly leads to a sense of self-disillusionment.

It seems silly to me, but I’m okay with it, if he chooses to believe these myths for himself. He has a right under the constitution to do so. But I reject him telling me that I must believe these fables as well. I am thankful for Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation for protecting my constitutional right to not believe in Baker’s religion. But that’s a topic for another blog.

Let’s get back to Baker.

I was tempted to stop my critique of this theist simply based on what he most likely believes. Nevertheless, I have decided to give him a chance and explore what he has to say. I will give him three strikes. Whenever he makes an error in reasoning or is simply dishonest, we’ll call it a strike. Three strikes and he’s out.

Batter up!

Looking over the list of what Baker most likely believes has caused me to question the validity of anything he has to say. Reading what he most likely believes makes it difficult to take him seriously. Plus, the fact that Baker has a PhD is even more concerning.

It still never ceases to amaze me that a person can earn an MA and a PhD and never have their supernatural belief system challenged along the way. The whole point of education is to expand your mind and widen your world view. Education is not meant to keep you boxed into a belief system based on the supernatural. It’s inconceivable that a person can hold on to such a narrow world view, in light of all the knowledge that is available to us.

It’s my opinion that if someone (like Baker) receives an M.A. and a PhD and still holds on to supernatural beliefs like we see in the Veritas’s mission statement they have wasted their education. Baker might have graduate with his supernatural faith intact, but at what cost? He certainly has not achieved “a renewed mind” or an accurate world view.” That’s the whole point of getting an education, isn’t it?

Strike One

One of the contradictions that Dan Barker addresses in his book godless, is the issue that certain verses in the Bible forbid killing such as “Thou shall not kill.” Yet in other verses Yahweh commands the Israelites to commit mass killings and genocide such as we find in this verse, “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.” Baker, however, doesn’t think those passages contradict each other. Here is his reasoning.

First, and perhaps the most obvious, God is not human and is not subject to human morality. It is absurd to think God is a subject to be ruled. God is the creator and lawgiver, not the creature. God can take life because he was the one who gave life.

There you have it. God, who is not subject to morality, can kill whoever he wants, but people can’t. Unless of course, God commands his people to kill and then they must follow his commands, or they will be killed. But which command should they follow, the one saying “do not kill” or the one saying “kill everybody”? That sounds like a contradiction to me. But Baker doesn’t see it that way.

Baker spends 722 words of his 9,100 arguing why he thinks God can kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants, but we can’t. The following 137-word argument is a prime example of somebody who spent way too much time studying philosophy and not enough time studying logic. Baker (in a convoluted sort of way) thinks he’s saying something valid, when he actually isn’t. Read for yourself.

“There is a difference between an efficient and instrumental cause. The primary efficient cause is that by which the effect is produced. Whereas, the secondary or instrumental efficient cause is that through which the effect is produced. When a man and a woman have a child, the parents are not the ones who gave life. God is the one who gave life through the parents. The parents are only the instrumental cause of the child. This is proven by the fact that when the efficient cause is removed, then the effect does not follow. Without an efficient cause, there can be no effect. If the efficient cause of the child’s life were the parents, then when the parents died, the cause would be removed, and the child’s life would end also, but this is not what happens.”

What they lack in logic…

Strike two

CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

Baker writes,

“The proper way to treat interpretative issues is to first look at the context. However, we know that some atheists like Barker want to draw attention away from the actual context… in order to sway those who will not look deeper into the issue. Of course, this only works for those who do not honestly want to understand the Bible verses in question. Context is at the heart of meaning.”

In Baker’s (brief?) 9,100-word chapter he uses the word “context or contextual” 50 times. Yet, when he finishes his eloquent but empty 137-word argument as seen above, he does exactly what he says shouldn’t be done. He quotes a single verse (completely out of context) from Daniel.

Daniel said it very eloquently in Daniel 5:23b: “the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified.”

He doesn’t even offer a hint of contextual background that might give us some indication of why Daniel wrote this. How about the verses before or after? How about the entire chapter or the entire book of Daniel. He uses the above verse to defend his belief that God is the one who gives life and therefore can take it away. This is not what this verse is about. He has taken it totally out of context to support his beliefs, and even according to him, that’s bad form. So, let’s hold Baker up to his own standards. He writes,

“The proper way to treat interpretative issues is to first look at the context. Of course, this only works for those who honestly want to understand the Bible verses in question.”

So, let’s see how honestly Baker wants to understand Daniel 5:23. First off, he doesn’t even quote the entire verse. He neglects to quote over three quarters of the verse. (How’s that for taking something out of context?) It would appear that Baker himself is doing what he accuses Barker of doing. He quotes only a portion of a verse hoping to “sway those who will not look deeper into the issue.”

So, let’s look deeper into the issue.

Perhaps, it would help us from being swayed if we looked at the entire verse and not just the portion Baker quoted. Plus, let’s look at verse 22 as well to see if that adds to our contextual understanding of the passage. We’re doing this because, as Baker says, we “honestly want to understand the verse in question.” Perhaps we’ll see just how honest Baker is being. Or not! Underlined is what Baker quoted.

22 “Yet “you, his ‘son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this, 23 but you have “exalted yourself against the “Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which do not see, hear or understand. But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and your “ways, you have not glorified.”

Oops. How embarrassing! The verse he quotes was actually written to one specific person for a specific reason. To take the verse or just a fraction of the verse out of context and use it to support his personal beliefs is not only downright dishonest and hypocritical, it also invalidates his entire 9,100-word argument.

Steeeerike three. You’re out! Back to the dugout!

That was quicker than I thought. Baker still had 7,600 words left in his convoluted argument. If I could give Baker advice for any future attempts to discredit atheist Dan Barker, it would be this. Next time, focus more on logic and less on length. Oh, and for god’s sake, try to be honest.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

 

22 Jul, 2024

Blog

Using New Testament Theology to Justify Old Testament Genocide

Old Testament Theology

Old Testament theology can pretty much be summarized by these two passages found in the sixth chapter Deuteronomy.

Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to keep all God’s statutes and commandments, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.

Take care lest you forget the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God—lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.

Simply put, the message to the Israelites is, “Obey Yahweh’s laws and you will be blessed. Disobey them or wordship other gods and you will be wiped off the face of the earth.” Just about all the prophets of the Old Testament profess this theology. But supposedly that all changed in the New Testament. It’s clear that there was a change, but it’s not the change you think it is.

New Testament Theology

Many christians see the New Testament as a kinder, gentler version of the God of the OT. “For God so loved the world…” and that kind of thing. But that’s not the main message of New Testament, is it? (Last year I wrote a blog about the absence of the word “love” in evangelical mission statements.)

Love is not the actual message of the New Testament.

What do we really get from the New Testament?

Every christian knows the verse from Romans 3: 23 which tells us, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” A couple of chapters later we’re told that “the wages of sin is death.” Put those two verses together and you have a synopsis of New Testament theology.

“Everybody is a sinner (from birth), and therefore everybody deserves to die.

The only way to escape this fate is to join the Jesus club.”

A person doesn’t even have to commit a sin to be considered a sinner. According to Christianity, every person is born a sinner because of the sins a fictitious Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden. It’s a ridiculous concept called “original sin” which, by the way, didn’t even exist in christian theology until the fourth or fifth century CE.

So, as we explore the justifications some christians put forth for the genocide found in the OT, we often find this New Testament theology that certainly did not exist in 1,500 BCE and wouldn’t exist for another two millennium. And it looks like this.

Using New Testament theology to justify Old Testament genocide (in their own words).

  • The second reason God commanded them all to be put to death is because they were all, every man, woman and child of them, sinners. And the wages of sin is death. (1)
  • When we read about the execution of the Canaanites we ought not to ask, “How could God do this?” but “Why does He not kill us all?” (1)
  • From the moment of our conception, we are all under God’s just death sentence. Every moment of every day is a momentary stay of execution. (1)
  • However, the question still remains: what about the children? This is not an easy question to answer, but we must keep several things in mind. First, no human person (including infants) is truly innocent. The Scripture teaches that we are all born in sin. This implies that all people are morally culpable for Adam’s sin in some way. Infants are just as condemned from sin as adults are. (2)
  • Every human on the planet deserves God’s judgment—not just the Canaanites. Right now, all humans everywhere—from the kind old lady next door to the hardened criminal on death row—are all deeply sinful. And they were born this way. Since birth, all human beings stand guilty, not only for their own sins but for the sin of Adam that has been passed down to them. And the penalty for sin is clear: “The wages of sin is death.” (7)
  • In the end, the conquest of Canaan remains a difficult and complex issue. And yet, if the conquest is viewed within the context of the Christian worldview, rather than from outside of it, then the objections quickly fade away. (6)
  • Second, God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person’s life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. (2)
  • God is under no obligation to extend anyone’s life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him. (2)

Another curious twist of using of NT theology to justify OT genocide.

The book of Hebrews* tells us that the Canaanites were “disobedient,” which implies moral culpability on their part. (2)

Here’s the actual verse from Hebrews 11:31. See what you think.

“By faith the prostitute Rahab**, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.”

The author of article 2 doesn’t actually delineate how the Canaanites were disobedient, and for that matter, neither does the author of Hebrews. Remember, the Canaanites weren’t under a covenant with Yahweh and weren’t under Jewish law. Nevertheless, they deserved to be slaughtered because they were “disobedient” and that disobedience “implied moral culpability.” The bottom line is that the author of article 2 is defending the act of (God directed) genocide against the Canaanites based simply on one verse in Hebrews which was written 16 centuries after the actual events. His justification is flimsy at best and downright deceptive and immoral at worst.

This faulty kind of justification might work with unquestioning christians, but hopefully there are also thoughtful believers out there who can muster the courage to publicly question such nonsense. I understand it’s socially risky to question the christian status quo, but it’s the right thing to do.

The following justification for the mass killing of children in the OT is disturbing. Prepare to be shocked.

The children who were killed went directly to heaven

  • It’s also worth considering the eternal state of those infants killed in Canaan. If God took them before the age of moral accountability, then they went straight to heaven (as we believe). Those children are in a far better place than if they had lived into adulthood as Canaanites. (2)
  • Without question, the Canaanite adults got their just deserts. Regarding the children, I personally take comfort in the fact that, on my view, those who die before the age of accountability are ushered immediately into Heaven. (5)

Notice that this author says he takes comfort “in the fact that” which is immediately followed by, “on my view” or better stated “in my opinion.” So, which is it, a fact, or an opinion? Does the bible address the issue of age of accountability or is he just making this up? Let’s see!

“The Bible never teaches that there is an age of accountability. The term never appears in the Bible nor does the concept in any form. Furthermore, scripture never suggests that children are born without sin or that they cannot be held accountable for sin because they don’t understand or recognize it” Verse by Verse Ministry. 

(Oops! We see this often with christians. They seem to have a rather loose understanding of what constitutes a fact. The examples I have encountered in the last year are too numerous to cite here. I’m planning a future blog called “What’s the truth, dammit?” where I will address this issue in greater detail.)

Easily the most disturbing justification for the killing of Canaanite children in the Old Testament is found in an article from a website ironically called “2belikechrist”. (What follows is more than a bit disturbing, so prepare yourself.)

  • Furthermore, if God saves the innocent, which the Bible tells us He does, (where?) the Midianite children were being taken out of an immoral world and going to live in Heaven with God. (10)
  • There would have been some pain associated with that journey, but pain, in itself, is not morally evil. Consider our practice of poking babies with needles to give them important medicine. It causes the baby momentary pain, but we consider it a long-term good.  (10)

Unbelievable! This author is comparing the prick of a needle for a vaccination with the violent and brutal killing of innocent children by either beheading them, running them through with a sword, or perhaps beating them against the rocks, like this lovely verse from Psalms 137:9.

Happy is he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks.

Let’s see if we can visualize these two scenarios. In the vaccine scenario the child is afraid but is sitting on her mother’s lap whom she trusts. A nurse comes in and while talking in a soothing voice immunizes the child with a harmless needle prick. The mother comforts the child by saying, “That’s it. No more. See that didn’t hurt so much.” Perhaps a lollipop is the reward for such a brave child.

In the Midianite scenario the child is afraid and also in her mother’s arms. Soldiers come and tear her away from her mother. Then as the child watches the soldiers violently kill her mother, by running her through with a sword, or maybe by beheading her. If the woman is with child, they will cut out the fetus and dash it against the rocks, all while the child is watching. And then they grab her. Just like a vaccine it causes momentary pain as they (in a not morally evil way) slit her throat or run her through with a sword. But 2belikechrist considers it a long-term good because now the child is in heaven with the god who ordered her family slaughtered.

Speaking of Christ, with reasoning skills like the author of 2belikechrist, Luke 18:16 should perhaps read like this, “But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. So, let’s bash their heads against the rocks and send them to join the kingdom of heaven right now.’”

When I related 2belikechrist’s reasoning to my wife, these were the words she used to express her reaction, “appalling, disgusting, frightening.” I couldn’t agree more. And I hope that even if you are a christian you would agree as well. If you’re not appalled by the morally bankrupt view of 2belikechrist then perhaps it’s time to rethink your religion.

Charlie Trimm in his book “The Destruction of the Canaanites”, concludes that there is a high cost for those who justify biblical genocide. He writes, “…it associates YHWH with something that looks a lot like genocide. Even if one thinks that they can defend this and live with such a belief, the social cost will be that many others will be repulsed by such a god and might also question the sanity and compassion of one who follows such a god. In addition, this belief could make evangelism more difficult.”

Do you think?

________________________________________________________________

Side notes:

The Book of Hebrews*

*Britannica says that “The language of The Book of Hebrews is extremely polished, elegant, and cultured Greek, the best in the New Testament. Plus, there are more Old Testament citations in Hebrews than in any other New Testament book.” This means that the references from the Old Testament would have also been in Greek, rather than ancient Hebrew. Whoever penned Hebrews (definitely not the Apostle Paul) was very well-educated and knew the Septuagint intimately.

The Story of Rahab** (the traitor).

If you’ve never read the story of the prostitute Rahab, it can be found in the 2nd and 6th chapters of Joshua. Joshua is planning to attack the city of (and the walls come tumblin’ down) Jericho. He sends out two spies to scout the city. They are about to be discovered by the king of Jericho, so Rahab hides them and tells the king that they had already left. She betrays her own people to save her own skin. She makes an agreement with the spies to spare her and her family. Verses 6:21-22 tell us what happened. “And the Israelites utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.” But Rahab and her family were spared. She is revered as a hero in Hebrew lore and is even listed in Matthew 1 as an ancestor of both King David and Jesus.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

References:

(1) https://wellspringchristianministries.org/why-did-god-command-the-children-of-israel-to-kill-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-promised-land/

(2) Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament? | GotQuestions.org

(3) https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/the-best-way-of-getting-out-of-the-whole-canaanite-genocide-thing-and-it-comes-right-from-the-bible-but-you-may-not-like-it/

(4) https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited

(5) https://www.str.org/w/the-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-

(6)  https://www.str.org/w/if-we-condemn-modern-day-genocide-why-don-t-we-condemn-god-for-destroying-the-canaanites-

(7) Is God a Genocidal Maniac? – Bible Apologetics – A DAILY DEVOTIONAL

(8) God, Genocide and Biblical Interpretation – Think Biblically – Biola University

(9)  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/god-guilty-genocide/   Kurger

(10)  2belike christ

 

5 Jul, 2024

Blog

Reevaluating Biblical Violence

Getting God off the hook for genocide.

We’ve been exploring the topic of Yahweh and biblical stories that look suspiciously like genocide. This is a hot topic within christian circles and the main objective is getting Yahweh off the hook for violence in the OT. In my previous blog we discussed a book by Dr. Charlie Trimm of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. His book, entitled, “The Destruction of the Canaanites.” tackles this difficult issue differently than most christian writers. He proposes four possible views of the problematic verses as represented by these four statements.

  1. God is good and compassionate.
  2. The Old Testament is a faithful record of God’s dealings with humanity and favorably portrays YAHWEH’s actions.
  3. The Old Testament describes events that are similar to genocide.
  4. Mass killings are always evil.

Trimm states that all of these four statements can’t be true at the same time. Therefore, he says, “scholars tend to reject any one of them so that the other statements can cohere.” He arranges his arguments based on which one of these four statement people choose to reject. In the previous blog we explored the reasons for rejecting any one of the first three statements and the consequences that might occur by doing so.

  • Reevaluating God
  • Reevaluating the Old Testament
  • Reevaluating Genocide in the OT

In this blog we are going to explore a school of christian thought that agrees with the first three statements but rejects statement number 4, (i.e. that mass killings are always evil.) How is that even possible, you might be asking yourself, but unfortunately, it’s a reality that must be reckoned with. We’ll take a deeper dive into this reasoning and perhaps we’ll see how christians are able to sanctimoniously justify biblical violence while at the same time claiming the moral higher ground.

The Nature of Evangelicals

Anyone who is familiar with evangelical christianity will know that rejecting statements 1, 2 or 3 is absolutely out of the question. It is verboten to question the nature of Yahweh or the inerrancy of the bible. Therefore statements 1 & 2 cannot be reevaluated as some writers have suggested. In addition, since the bible is inerrant, the descriptions of genocide in the OT could not have been hyperbole, but really did occur. If the bible says that Joshua’s armies “put all inhabitants to the sword, killed everything that breathed, and left no survivors,” then it must be taken literally. This leaves evangelicals with limited options. They must protect Yahweh (at all cost) and at the same time justify the stories of mass killings that are found in their bible. They accomplish this miraculous feat by rejecting the statement that “mass killings are always evil.” One christian author writes,

“The issue, then, cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil- (if) it is sanctioned by a Holy God that settles the question.”

Well, there you have it. If God commands mass killings, then it’s okay. Christians who accept this reasoning, are released from having to think deeply about this topic and perhaps even growing a conscience. There’s no need to wrestle with the idea of a good God commanding the slaughter of men, women, and innocent children. God must have had reasons.

And here’s where it gets a bit twisted and disturbing. Their reasoning falls into several schools of thought.

  • God was protecting the Hebrew people from temptation,
  • The Canaanites were sinners deserving a death sentence,
  • The Canaanites were trespassing on Hebrew land.
  • God is sovereign and can do whatever he wants (i.e. kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants.)

We’ll explore the first two justifications for biblical violence in this blog and cover the rest in next week’s blog.

God was protecting the Hebrew people from temptation

  • God wanted the land cleared of all temptations to His people to turn from Him, His worship, and His law. The Canaanites were a threat to the purity of God’s people. He had set them apart, consecrated them, adopted them. In giving this order, He was protecting them. (1)
  • Because of all of these abominable practices the Canaanites had become a dangerous threat to the Israelites. (7)
  • In the process of executing His sentence against the Canaanites, God would be cleansing the land of every vestige of their debased religion to establish a land of spiritual purity and religious truth. (5)

Is clearing away all temptations what it takes to achieve “spiritual purity”? If that’s the case then there could be serious ramifications for today’s society. It’s not all that farfetched that fundamentalist groups would see the LGBTQ community as a threat to the purity and sanctity of christian family values and call for members of the LGBTQ community to be “cleansed from the land”. The seeds for such a movement have already been sown. The following is an excerpt from a Washington University publication.

Cultural backlash: Is LGBTQ progress an attack on Christianity?

White Christians are concerned recent social changes threaten their social influence, namely their ability to instill and enforce their notions of Christian values upon broader society — not realistic threats, such as loss of livelihood. Simply reminding white Christians about a changing cultural climate in which their influence is waning was sufficient to increase their perception of Christians’ victimization and perceived conflict with LGBTQ people.

Protecting the Purity of  God’s People

So, how did God’s protection work out for the Israelites? Did killing the Canaanites actually create a land of “spiritual purity and religious truth”? It appears not. Yahweh might have been protecting his people from being corrupted by the Canaanites, but who could protect them from God?

  • The Old Testament clearly details that because Israel chose to intermarry with the Canaanites, they also adopted many of their evil practices. (7)
  • Unfortunately, instead of completing the conquest of Canaan and driving its people out as commanded, the Jews capitulated. Blending in with their enemy’s godless culture, they quickly were corrupted by it. Eventually, the same judgment that fell on the debauched Canaanites, fell upon the corrupted Jews for the very same reasons. (5)
  • God didn’t show any favoritism toward the people of Israel. When they subsequently committed many of the same sins as the Canaanites they too suffered the death penalty for their sinfulness. (5)

The Canaanites were sinners deserving a death sentence

This is undoubtedly the most widely used justification for killing the Canaanites. It should be noted that throughout the entire history of war, people have always vilified their enemies. When you have to kill them, it helps to think of them not as real people with real families but as “a hideously nasty bunch” worthy of death. The more we can dehumanize them the easier it will be to kill them, as we shall see in the following excerpts from online articles.

  • A basic knowledge of Canaanite culture reveals its inherent moral wickedness. The Canaanites were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm. The Canaanites’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” (2)
  • God was angry. Indeed, He was furious. And with good reason. Even by ancient standards, the Canaanites were a hideously nasty bunch. Their culture was, decadent to its roots. Its debauchery was dictated primarily by its fertility religion that tied eroticism of all varieties to the successful agrarian cycles of planting and harvest. (5)

So, God was furious? And for good reason? Not surprisingly, I found another christian author who argued that “God acted with a heavy heart, saddened at what had to be done.” First off, how do these guys know that God was either furious or saddened? And second, it’s curious that when someone claims to speak for God, God always seems to have the same opinion they do.

Some christians love an angry god. He’s still angry and they can’t wait to see what will happen to non-believers like me when an angry Jesus finally decides to come back.

Other christians, however, believe in a kinder, gentler god that would be saddened by the necessity of wiping out an entire tribe of people. Perhaps they envision Yahweh saying something like this to Moses, “Verily, it shall sadden me to doeth this but I guess it must be done. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.”

Article 5 continues with the list of the Canaanites’ morally disgusting practices.

  • In addition to divination, witchcraft, and female and male temple sex, Canaanite idolatry encompassed a host of morally disgusting practices that mimicked the sexually perverse conduct of their Canaanite fertility gods: adultery, homosexuality, transvestitism, pederasty (men sexually abusing boys), sex with all sorts of beasts, and incest. (5)

Pederasty? Wow, that sounds a bit like the Catholic church or perhaps the Boy Scouts. One has to wonder if these “morally disgusting practices” would justify the destruction of these institutions. Maybe priests and scout leaders abusing boys by the thousands hasn’t made God furious enough yet, like it has the rest of us.

It wasn’t genocide, it was divine capital punishment

  • The conquest was an exercise of capital punishment on a national scale. Indeed, God brought the same sentence of destruction on His own people when they sinned in like manner. (5)
  • I believe that God was justified to destroy the Canaanites. It wasn’t genocide but capital punishment. The Lord tells us that He ordered the Canaanite destruction because of their sinfulness. Many of the Canaanite sins were death penalty sins in the Old Testament and since Israel was a theocracy God could enact the death penalty back then for these sins. (7)

Here’s a new one for me. “It’s wasn’t genocide it was capital punishment on a national scale.” You just gotta love the audacity of the line, “…since Israel was a theocracy God could enact the death penalty back then for these sins.” First, it appears that the writer of article 7 overlooked the fact that the Canaanites were not under a covenant with Yahweh and had no obligation to follow Jewish law. Therefore, Israel’s enacting capital punishment on a national scale based entirely on Jewish laws (which did not apply to the Canaanites) would be a complete moral violation. And second, the Israelites hadn’t even entered the “promised land”, so even they weren’t under Jewish law yet.

On another note, undoubtedly some fundamentalists would love to return to the good old days of a theocracy. It would make things so much simpler if they could enact the death penalty against people they just don’t like. Here’s a short list of capital offenses that could be punishable under a modern-day theocracy using their holy book as precedent.

  • cursing or striking one’s parents
  • worshiping other gods or no god
  • heresy
  • violating the Sabbath
  • maliciously giving false testimony
  • adultery
  • homosexuality
  • fornication

In his conclusion regarding the option of rejecting the idea that mass killings are evil, Trimm writes this,

“Obviously, the main problem with this argument is that it associates YHWH with violence, which will be appalling to many. Additionally, this position leaves open the possibility of using the events in Joshua as a justification for modern genocide.”

This may seem by some as a bit of paranoia on my part, but I have also found this sentiment in other christian articles. It would seem that even christians are concerned by militant fundamentalists in their ranks. If they are, then we should definitely be also.

Coming Next

We will explore how some christians use the “kinder, gentler” New Testament to justify Old Testament violence. But it gets worse, some christians also believe that God can kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants. So, you better watch out, you’re living on borrowed time. Christian writer Peter Enns asks, “Is this really the kind of God we believe in?” We’ll answer that question in the next blog.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

References:

(1) https://wellspringchristianministries.org/why-did-god-command-the-children-of-israel-to-kill-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-promised-land/

(2) Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament? | GotQuestions.org

(3) https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/the-best-way-of-getting-out-of-the-whole-canaanite-genocide-thing-and-it-comes-right-from-the-bible-but-you-may-not-like-it/

(4) https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited

(5) https://www.str.org/w/the-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-

(6)  https://www.str.org/w/if-we-condemn-modern-day-genocide-why-don-t-we-condemn-god-for-destroying-the-canaanites-

(7) Is God a Genocidal Maniac? – Bible Apologetics – A DAILY DEVOTIONAL

(8) God, Genocide and Biblical Interpretation – Think Biblically – Biola University

(9)  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/god-guilty-genocide/   Kurger

(10)  2belike christ