"Biblegod"

[unkleE]

One of the strongest attacks on Christianity (it seems to me) is the attack on the God of the Old Testament. Dubbed "biblegod" by atheists, he is accused of being genocidal, immoral, nasty, etc. I think these are charges we have to consider, and defend.

I have generally taken the following line:

1. I argue that when I consider the world and humanity, there are many reasons to consider it likely that God exists, and some that make it reasonable to question his existence. The biblegod question must be considered in context.

When I consider the most fundamental matters - human freedom, reason & ethics, the origin and design of the universe, the historical evidence for Jesus and human (including my own) experience - I find the evidence for God greatly outweighs the uncertainties. And so belief is really the only option. The problems with the Old Testament view of God then become simply ..... problems. I can't call the OT God immoral without objective ethics, I can't reason to a conclusion without truthful reasoning and I can't make a decision without freewill, none of which atheism can adequately explain.

2. When I consider the alleged nastiness of the OT God, I find I could take one of about five basic positions:

• The strong faith position - God is God, get used to it.
  
• The strong defense position - God had good reasons to do what he did - and here are some of them ......
  
• Progressive revelation - God started with a primitive human race (especially primitive in spiritual and ethical ideas) so he revealed himself in terms necessary for them to understand, then progressively modified and corrected that initially crude picture.
  
• The anthropological explanation - that was simply what they thought about God back then, we know better now.
  
• Scepticism - it was all a ghastly mistake, there's no God, only silly ideas.

My inclination is to the middle one (progressive revelation), but I wouldn't feel very sure about that, nor entirely happy with it.

So all that seems to me to be an adequate defense, but it still leaves me wondering a little about what is the actual truth and if we can ever know it. I think it depends on what sort of faith we end up with, whether reason and understanding God are important to us or not. I presume most of us on this forum think those things are important.

What do you all think?

[Mike D]

I agree with you on the existence of God - although it's not quite 'case closed', I agree that the factors that point towards his existence hold greater weight than those that seem to deny it.

With regards to the Old Testament and the acts of God described there, I find it hard to take a single position on these matters. Conversely though, I think the positions I avoid most are those you describe as 'strong defence' and 'scepticism': the former because it often feels like a post hoc rationalisation; the latter because, although God at times does feel unlikely, to try and wave away the issue in such a manner feels like a truly Dawkinsian failure to engage with the issue.

I do maintain a certain degree of scepticism about the events, but of a different kind - that of 'did the events really happen as described in the Old Testament?' rather than 'is there a God?'. For example, taking a couple of the incidents:

- I don't believe that the biblical description of the world being covered by a cataclysmic flood really happened, so atheist charges that God would be unfair to kill the population of the world do not apply

- Likewise, i don't believe that several million Israelites crossed the Sinai desert and invaded the land of Canaan.

I think there is definitely something to the 'strong faith' position, but it also has its attendant dangers - it is good (to my mind) to 'let God be God', but in doing so we may impute to God actions or motives that are not worthy of Him. If we say that God can command people to deliver judgment in His Name, on what basis do we reject modern-day people doing the same?

Like you, I probably come closest to the 'progressive revelation' position, but with smatterings of 'anthropological' mixed in: I think there is genuine revelation in the Old Testament, but with bits that also describe the views of an iron age tribe often at war.

Mike

[humphreyclarke]

This is an interesting question. Here are my thoughts.

The Old Testament is a holy book which we might agree, contains much genuine revelation. It is also a history of the Israelite people and contains genocide, slaughter and barbarism. I suppose the first thing to say is that everything in the Old Testament must be seen in the light of the New Testament and the image of God it presents. Indeed, when you look at ‘Biblegod’ and say, ‘gosh what a nasty chap’ you have come to that conclusion because you are judging him according to Judeo-Christian values. Without the influence of those values there is no objective reason why I should care about the Canaanites for example. So I think the idea of progressive revelation is key here, the NT must have primacy in this respect.

Let’s look at the History of England by way of comparison to the OT (remembering that it is partly a history). Since the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon tribes to Christianity we have routinely slaughtered people with the belief that God was on our side. To take an example, when the Puritans settled in North America and the Indians began dying of smallpox, commentators believed that it was God who had sent the plague to clear the way. Would we look at our own history and say, ‘God was pretty nasty for killing all those Indians and backing us in the Hundred Years War’ or would we simply say these people that thought God was some kind of weapon of mass destruction you can bring into play whenever you feel like doing something malicious were mistaken. Would we say that because English Christians have waged war and said God was on their side that this invalidates the whole of Christianity? or would we say that those people had corrupted the original message. It seems a bit extreme to say that because of these actions we can rule out any progress in spiritual matters that took place.

[James Hannam]

As usual, I find myself agreeing in large part with Mike and Humphrey.

I do find much of what God is supposed to have done in the OT is more likely to be what the authors think he has done. In this respect, history in the OT is no different to history of the medieval era where God is always given credit for victory in battle, natural disasters or anything else that happens. And of course, bad stuff is his justice as well.

So I don't think I can accept the indictment against Biblegod because, like the sceptics, I don't think Biblegod exists or at least he is not the God I know.

Best wishes

James

[unkleE]

Thanks for comments. I think we are all in broad agreement about how a historical understanding explains the difficulties. But we are not just historians, or people trying to do history, we are also believers (I presume). And I think our belief takes us a little beyond what historians can establish.

For example, in looking at NT history, I have taken the view that the objective historians can tell us what they believe we can confidently believe in the gospels, what is coloured by the Church's beliefs though still basically factual, what is (in their view) unbelievable, and what they are unable as historians to pass judgment on - e.g. the miraculous, which historians can pass judgment on what was believed when (e.g. is belief in the resurrection early or late?), but the truth of which is basically a metaphysical matter. Then, if I believe, as I do, that the evidence for the historicity of jesus is strong, and I put my trust in him, I will tend to believe the miraculous which is beyond the historians' methods.

Now surely something similar applies here? Yes, we can explain historically why the OT contains the mishmash of stuff it has, but once we believe in Jesus, the OT is his holy book and has traditionally been part of the christian holy book. We can't just consign it to historical interpretation, but surely must also incorporate it into our faith. I'm not talking about regarding it as inerrant truth or anything, something I think defies belief, but seeing it as both history and as God's revelation in some form.

I am drawn to the view that, just as so much of Jesus' words are unexpected, even outrageous, so God works in unexpected ways. If he can work through people like us to accomplish his ends on earth, then he can work through an imperfect race and their imperfect response to him recorded in an imperfect book. But that view would be regarded as heresy in many churches, while my willingness to have any faith in the OT might be regarded as naive in a few other churches.

I don't really care what church traditions say, but I am still grasping at finding the truth that respects both history and faith. Anyone have any further responses?

[jamierobertson]

I actually take the "strong defense" position, with the caveat that many of the "atrocities" are misrepresented by skeptics. I also appreciate that we're not in the epistemological position to make a judgment about "the right thing to do" in many of these situations. I've already seen several instances where a good grasp of God's HOLINESS is what is missing to understand what's going on - skeptics commonly have the image of a mildly demented sky-grandpa who should be handing out sweets, when actually God has never supposed to have been like that.

Mind you, I'm speaking as a medic, not an historian

[unkleE]

It doesn't worry me whether you're a doctor or a historian or a retired chicken sexer (does this job actually exist?), I am really interested in what you are saying. If you have time, please, I'd be interested in a little more detail on:

1. How you think sceptics have misrepresented apparent atrocities? I still have difficulty in understanding why God would order the Israelities to kill, exterminate, etc on occasions. It is difficult, though not impossible, to think that God has the right to kill off a tribe, but asking another tribe to do the dirty work is more of a problem.

2. How would you use God's holiness to justify some of these actions to non-believers? Or would you not bother? I can see that "God's ways are above our ways", so I don't expect full understanding, but I don't feel comfortable with so little understanding.

3. How do you personally balance the more historical approach suggested by James, Humphrey & co with this more "faithful" or "traditional" approach? (I suppose I should ask the same question of them!)

Thanks again. I am really wanting to get some more wisdom on this.

[jamierobertson]

Jul 27, 2008 1:22:10 GMT unkleE said:

It doesn't worry me whether you're a doctor or a historian or a retired chicken sexer (does this job actually exist?)

Hmm... I have heard of such an occupation, but only in South Park :grin:. Anyhoo...

It is difficult, though not impossible, to think that God has the right to kill off a tribe, but asking another tribe to do the dirty work is more of a problem.

Examples come to mind such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (the skeptic says God is punishing Pharaoh with the later plagues for something God made Pharaoh do; rather, the hardening is a punishment in itself for Pharaoh's prior abuse of Israel and blunt refusal to repent), and the march against the Midianites (rather than pointless genocide, the Midianites essentially prostituted the majority of their female population in order to pull the Israelites into what was essentiallyspiritual adultery - and HAD to be punished!). Why does God kill lots of people? My simple answer would be because He has to, and I'm prepared to give Him the benefit of the doubt seeing as i) He's omniscient, and I'm not, and ii) elsewhere he frequently shows the enormous extent of his love for us and willingness to forgive.

As for the Israelites "doing the dirty work" - why not? Miraculous intervention is relatively rare when you think about it, even in the context of (say) the Exodus, where God is supposedly very close to his people. For every event that is described as miraculous, how many others happen within the laws of physics and nature? Countless trillions! I think God tends to work through his creation rather than in spite of it (why else would he create?), and exceptions to this rule are usually for very specific reasons. Additionally, Israel tend to learn some tough lessons when they do God's work for him - often improperly (cf. the plundering of Jericho). Would they have grown had God simply pulled the cosmic plug on their enemies?

How would you use God's holiness to justify some of these actions to non-believers? Or would you not bother?

Bloody good question. God's character includes holiness, and any evaluation of God's actions MUST take this into account; but obviously a self-proclaimed humanist will have trouble accepting the concept. On the other hand, I try and show how I'd WANT God to be holy - basically, a God who is laissez-faire about sin isn't worth worshiping, IMO.

How do you personally balance the more historical approach suggested by James, Humphrey & co with this more "faithful" or "traditional" approach?

I take each event as it comes, pray about it, look at the available data and see what seems to make most sense. I think James and Humphrey have a point; civilisation was much more precarious then than it is now, and indeed that's the very reason WHY these interventions were needed. An adulterous man today is sinning, and can cause a great deal of suffering to those around him, but the further-reaching consequences for society tend to be limited by the "buffers" we have in place (social security, supermarkets on every street, etc etc). Back then, though, such an act could cause consequences far beyond him and his wife, and firmer action had to be taken. I also don't see a need to take Genesis 1 literally. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that Jesus treated Abraham and co like historical characters - and if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me!

Feel free to agree or disagree... I realise I've not gone into a great deal of depth about some of the things above. If you want more details then just say so, but they may be a wee while in coming due to work commitments!

Jsr

[hawkinthesnow]

I go with the idea of progressive revelation. The OT as we know have it has been edited a number of times, but incoporarates several layers of material from different theological view points. It serves the interests of atheist critics to emphasise those portions that belong to the most primitve layers that represent God as the tribal deity. They conveniently ignore in particular the major prophetic writings which represent ethical monotheism at it's most sublime, i.e the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah, in which God is presented as the universal saviour, and the nation of Israel is the suffering servant.

[unkleE]

jamie:

Thanks for your further comments. I think all of your points are good, and I could conceivably hold those views. And yet on that view it does seem as if God approved of actions we would call grossly sinful today, and I still struggle with that. But I agree with the view that we must be careful in "judging" God because we don't know anywhere near all the facts nor do we have a correct view of right and wrong.

Jul 27, 2008 20:01:21 GMT hawkinthesnow said:

I go with the idea of progressive revelation. The OT as we know have it has been edited a number of times, but incoporarates several layers of material from different theological view points. It serves the interests of atheist critics to emphasise those portions that belong to the most primitve layers that represent God as the tribal deity. They conveniently ignore in particular the major prophetic writings which represent ethical monotheism at it's most sublime, i.e the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah, in which God is presented as the universal saviour, and the nation of Israel is the suffering servant.

To me, that makes perfect sense if one assumes that the OT is a record of people's understanding of God, or of his truncated revelation to suit the needs of the time. But most christians, now and through the ages, have thought of it as more than that. Have we been wrong all along in our understanding, and God is just allowing us to be more enlightened now (I have no problems in principle with that view) or are we now being disbelieving of God's revelation? I still struggle to decide which, although I lean the same way as you.

Not sure if there is any more to say. I think I'll conclude for now that we need to be guided by God collectively to come to as correct a view as we are capable of. I have begun praying for that wisdom, and I think discussion such as this helps us all to consider.

Thanks to all.