Why Did Jesus Have to Die?

from Google Images

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has described the Atonement:

“I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity. If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment…”[1]

What can be said of this? Well, first of all, it seems that Dr. Dawkins has misunderstood the doctrine of Atonement. While it may be true that our sins can be forgiven outright, this doesn’t tell the whole story.

 

Did Paul Say Lying Serves God?

from Google Images

Many atheists claim that Paul both declared he lied to advance the Gospel and maintained that the word of God should be supported, even if it is found to be false. For example, Paul concludes in Romans 3:4 that God must be true, even if all man are found to be liars. Is this just another way of saying: even if God lies we must consider his lie to be true?[1] Must we contradict truth in order to support the word of God? Many claim that is exactly what Christians must believe, and if true, why should anyone believe us? Why should anyone even consider the logic I used to support God’s word in this series about God’s morality?[2]

 

Does God Lie to Accomplish his Ends?

from Google Images

Christians have been accused of twisting Scripture and tweaking the text in order defend God who tells his faithful to lie for him, and not only so, but sometimes this leads to the death of the one being deceived. In other words, Christians use deception, just as our God does. First, we use deception upon one another, presumably to keep the faithful devoted to God. Secondly, we practice deception against others through evangelism in order to attract unsuspecting people into the fold. Support for such an accusation comes from using certain Scriptures out of context in order to paint an evil and disturbing portrait of the Lord. For example, according to this argument, God is not above using lying spirits to deceive and kill unsuspecting folks (1Kings 22:22).[1]

 

What Is the Source of Morality?

from Google Images

At the very heart of any criticism of God’s judgment of the Canaanites is the question of our source of moral consciousness. If morality is not what God says it is, then it must be what man says it is. If morality is what God says it is, then we have no right to judge God for doing whatever he does, because all of his judgments are good (moral – see Deuteronomy 32:4). On the other hand, if morality is what man says it is, how have we come upon this knowledge of knowing right from wrong? What is its foundation, and can we trust it?

 

Is Religion the Root of All Evil?

from Google Images

Often the accepted leadership of the new atheism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens,[1] Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett (also referred to as the Four Horsemen) have argued that religion is not only a delusion but a dangerous delusion. It seems that they believe religion is at the root of all our problems. They not only advocate separation from religion but desire to separate religion from public affairs. In other words they advocate religious impotence. No religion of any kind (but especially Christianity) should have a public voice, including in education. It seems, according to their point of view, if religion should become irrelevant, many, if not all, of our problems would be solved.

 

The Untamable God

from Google Images

Some Biblical critics may argue that the proposition that Israel waged war with the Canaanites at the command of God, gives carte blanche permission for all would be religious terrorists to do as they please and claim “God told me to do it!”[1] This was the battle cry of the Crusades, and it is behind the jihad terrorism of our day, including the 9/11 tragedy. Yet, this reasoning cannot be reconciled with the Bible. God’s commands to Israel under Moses and Joshua were unique and never again repeated throughout Israel’s history. Saul didn’t seek to have the Philistines devoted to destruction, and David didn’t seek such a thing in any of his campaigns against the nations surrounding Israel. Neither did any of the kings of Israel or Judah seek to devote any of their enemies to destruction in the wars they took part in later. One cannot reasonably justify war or indiscriminate killing by using the Bible for one’s support.

 

How to Soften a Hard Heart

from Google Images

In Matthew 19:8 Jesus told the Pharisees who questioned him about divorce that Moses allowed divorce because of their hard hearts. As a whole, ancient Israel simply wouldn’t accept a monogamous relationship. Therefore, in order to protect the more vulnerable woman, God (through Moses) commanded Israel how former wives and their children should be treated in the event a man should marry another woman. Even so, and remembering that it has been my position that Israel was at the time of his inheritance no more righteous than the Egyptians whom God had judged on Israel’s behalf, this idea of a hard heart should be explored in the light of the Canaanite wars.

 

Does God Hate the Canaanites?

from Google Images

How is it possible that a loving God could call for such brutal treatment of the Canaanites. If killing them wasn’t enough, he commanded that they be driven out of their homes and out of their land. Even if we could conclude that such a thing was justified, how does God’s preference for Israel in this matter express any love whatsoever for the Canaanites?[1] In other words, if one could show God is just in his behavior toward Canaan, where was his love? The Christian cliché: “hate the sin but love the sinner” seems to be absent here. Why?

 

Genocide and Noncombatants

from Google Images

Despite what I have argued up to this point, some may insist that my position is a stretch, that a more simple reading of the text—not taking context into consideration—is the best way to understand what is written. What if **all** is not hyperbole (exaggeration)? What if **all** means the whole race or people—**all** the Canaanites, every last man, woman and child? Apologists are simply biased, looking for and readily grasping at a more palatable moral solution to the Canaanite question. Is this so? Should we throw out context and literary tools such as hyperbole in order to seize a more simple reading of the text? I believe such an argument is ridiculous, but let’s look at what my arguments do tell us so far.[1]

 

What Do We Know of Baal-Peor?

from Google Images

Baal was the Canaanite god of fertility and agriculture. Baal-Peor was this same god who was worshiped in Moab centered at Peor. Numbers 25 records Israel betraying the Covenant in some way that concerned Peor.[1] How should we understand this? Is it possible that worship of Baal-Peor is simply worship of Yahweh under a different name, as at least one critic has claimed? If so, how do we explain the 24000 Israelites who lost their lives through execution or a plague? How should we then interpret the war between Israel and Midian that developed afterward?

 

Why Kill Midianite Women and Children?

It is not just the Biblical critic who gets upset over passages like Numbers 31:12-18, but even those of us who believe the Bible contains God’s word for us have trouble understanding what God is doing. I remember sitting in Sunday school when a woman told us she was involved in reading the Old Testament. She said that she was horrified at some of the things that occurred, and admitted she didn’t understand many of God’s judgments, as they pertain to things of the nature we find in this scripture. She finally concluded that she was glad to have been born this side of the Cross.

 

What Did the Midianite Women Do?

from Google Images

In previous blog-posts I put forth that Balaam advised Midian how to corrupt Israel, bringing her out from under the protection of Yahweh, their God. The Midian leadership took measures to put Balaam’s advice into practice, so that Israel could be weakened (and managed), if not destroyed. Therefore, Israel went out to meet Midian in battle (Numbers 31:3-7) and slew all the males. The problem comes in Numbers 31:9 when Israel took all the Midianite women captive, which angered Moses (Numbers 31:14), who then told the soldiers to slay all the women who weren’t virgins (Numbers 31:17). Why kill these women. They weren’t warriors. They should be reckoned as noncombatants—shouldn’t they?[1]

 

Was God Cruel to the Midianites?

Some Biblical critics seem to want to demonize the God of the Bible over his treatment of the Midianites in Numbers 31. What really occurred there and why did Moses command Israel to slay all the non-virgin women and all the male children with the sword? Some have accused God of genocide in this passage, and that over the trifle matter of calling him by a different name. Is that true, and if not why was God so upset over the worship of Baal-Peor? How was the virginity of the young females found out? Is it true that Israel violated these innocent girls by performing an inspection of some kind on their genitals? Serious accusations such as these arise out of emotional outrage and usually a misunderstanding of the text, but let’s try to understand what really went on.

 

How Can We View Joshua’s Campaign?

Some Biblical critics point out that Joshua’s campaign against the Canaanite people was ruthless and inhumane,[1] often pointing to Israeli psychologist’s, Dr. Georges Tamarin, 1966 study of Joshua’s war tactics, which study involved the opinions of over a thousand Israeli children.[2] They often point out Joshua 6:21and 8:25 as particularly disconcerting. Imagine, completely destroying Jericho and Ai and everyone within both cities, whether men or women, young or old. How can one justify this kind of warfare?

 

How Is Killing Children Just?

from Google Images

Killing children is never just. Is the killing of the babe instead of the mother in a dangerous pregnancy just. Did the child receive its just reward for simply trying to be born? Nevertheless, a difficult decision had to be made, and the mother was saved alive. Justice for the children is not the concern in 1Samuel 15. Nevertheless, a difficult decision was made, and that according to the preferred choice in the ANE culture. Most cultures preferred a quick death over a slow, painful one. Moreover, historical records of any age show us that most cultures also preferred death to slavery.