"Reason 5" for rejecting Christianity
(5) The Evil Nature of God
Christians have consistently ignored the Old Testament portrayal of God’s murderous behavior.
It is "ignored," so to speak, because the Bible stories provide some lessons which matter, despite the blood and gore. Obsessing on the blood and gore is a distraction from the main point.
Often they claim that the New Testament overrides and replaces the Old Testament, based on the idea that Jesus supplied mankind with a new covenant.
No, they don't say that the NT overrides or replaces the OT.
But what cannot be denied is that Jesus himself was a student of the Old Testament, firmly believed in it, and warned that it was not to be ignored or discarded. Therefore, Christians must concede that God performed the evil deeds that are documented in the Bible.
No, they don't have to concede this any more than a non-believer has to concede it. The "evil deeds" are not the point. They are not what the Bible stories are about.
Otherwise Jesus would have corrected the scriptures and explained that God the Father (or he himself?) did not commit those atrocities.
No, we don't know what Jesus "would have corrected" or "explained" or what he would have said about the atrocities. The atrocities are not the subject matter of those scriptures. Attention directed to them is a distraction.
To repeat, according to Christians, Jesus was God, and he was physically on the earth teaching from the Old Testament. If the scriptures were wrong in their portrayal of God, Jesus would have emphatically proclaimed this fact to his followers and whoever else would listen.
No, this would have been a distraction. Those bloody stories were not an important issue to deal with. We don't know what Jesus would have "proclaimed" about this, or that he would have proclaimed anything about it. What seems important to you today is not what was important back then.
Those readers and listeners did not need the "portrayal of God" to be updated. Focusing on this was not their concern. They didn't need answers about whether God did this or not. There was no need for Jesus to explain something to them that they did not need to have explained.
The following is taken from
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html, listing 158 killing events for which God was either directly or indirectly responsible. The complete list is shown below for effect, but one in particular deserves a focused look, I Samuel 15:3:
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
Awww, even the poor donkeys!
There is no evidence that Jesus denounced this scripture . . .
There was no need to denounce it. His listeners did not need any such denunciation. Or any explanation why God would order something like this. Or any sermon about whether it was right or wrong.
. . . and apparently it was in keeping with his concept of God the Father.
Not necessarily. It might have been contrary to his concept, and yet he still did not need to denounce this scripture. Why should he waste time denouncing all the scriptures that are offensive? These scriptures were not relevant to his program.
(Actually, we're only assuming he did not denounce such scriptures. For all we know, maybe he did denounce them, and those sayings of his were suppressed.)
There are many possible answers to this complaint against Christianity/the Bible/Judaism. One is that God did not really order this assault, but that the more militant Israelites used the Yahweh appeal in order to inspire the less militant ones to fight harder, because this was a nomadic tribe that did warfare against other tribes over territory, or over resources, and at that time tribes had to do this in order to survive, and the stronger ones prevailed and drove out or destroyed the weaker ones.
The historical evidence is not that the Israelites generally achieved this, but instead settled alongside the other tribes, in separate towns, and co-existed with them. But the more militant ones, especially some of the prophets, condemned this and demanded elimination of the pagans and taught that Yahweh would punish the Israelites for not destroying the competing tribes.
It is likely that if the Israelites had never fought the other tribes at all but instead tried to peacefully co-exist with them from the beginning, they would have been eliminated, partly through assimilation and partly through genocide against them.
Any person who worships a god who gave this order should have their head examined.
This is an ad hominem argument. An emotional outburst that those of the opposing belief "should have their head examined" cannot be given as a "reason" to reject something.
There's plenty of reason to doubt that God really ordered the attack and that the event just reflects the tribal warfare environment of the period, and that this is totally irrelevant to anything Jesus taught about.
But if we go to the extreme, as a possibility, and assume that God ordered such aggression and slaughter and that Jesus was right there in the battle butchering women and children so the Israelites could take the territory, then you must be assuming that Jesus had great power, to be involved in activities 1000 years before his career in Galilee.
You can't suppose that Christians believe this, or insist that they must believe it, if they say they don't, anymore than others including atheists must believe it. So your only argument must be that
if Jesus was actually there doing some of the killing, then those who worship him should have their head examined.
But the opposite conclusion is just as valid. If Jesus had power to transport himself over time like this, killing the enemies of Israel in 1000 BC but reappearing in 30 AD to offer salvation to everyone -- if it's granted by the atheists and all the debaters that this is what happened, then maybe one has to be out of their mind NOT to "worship" him.
the list:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
Some of the more interesting ones on the list:
18. When the people complained, God burned them to death -- Num 11:1
24. God kills 14,700 for complaining about God’s killings -- Num 16:49
49. Jael pounds a tent stake through a sleeping man’s skull -- Jg 4:18-22
103. God sent bears to kill 42 boys for making fun of a prophet’s bald head -- 2 Kg 2:23-24
[But they were
she bears, which isn't as bad.]
109. Ahab’s sons: 70 heads in two baskets -- 2 Kg 10:6-10
115. God sent lions to eat those who didn’t fear him enough -- 2 Kg 17:25-26
According to the Bible, God killed or authorized the killings of up to 25 million people. This is the God of which Jesus was an integral part. That is to say: Jesus himself was an accessory to these murders and massacres. Therefore, Christianity must own them and admit that their god is in fact a serial, genocidal, infanticidal, filicidal, and pestilential murderer.
Yes, they must admit this, but
ONLY if God actually did these killings and Jesus actually was there participating. And if God actually did these killings, then also any atheist or nonbeliever must also admit this, or if they don't admit it, then they're refuted by their own premise "if God actually did" it.
You can't say "If God did this" and then turn around and say he didn't. Once you hypothesize that he did, you must accept any conclusion that follows from this without backing up and saying "but oh, he really did not."
But if God did not do these killings, then Christianity has nothing to explain or admit or apologize for. Either way, whether God really did these killings or not, there is no argument here against Christianity.
Let's consider the worst possible scenario, i.e., that God did cause all these events and that Jesus had some hand in it. Even that Jesus was right there slaughtering the victims.
Since this is the worst possible scenario, and if this can be refuted as an argument against Christianity, then all the other scenarios also can be refuted, because they are not as bad as this one. I.e., refuting the other possible scenarios-arguments will be easier than refuting this one.
So let's just assume that this is the truth: God caused all these atrocities and Jesus also was there helping God, or Jesus and God are the same and so it was Jesus who did all these atrocities.
Now it's irrelevant at this point to say that you don't believe any of it and that therefore the hypothesis is false. If an argument exists here, it poses the possibility that God or Christ actually did commit all these atrocities, going back several centuries before the time Christ or Jesus did his miracle acts and was crucified.
If you reject this possibility, then there is no argument. This whole argument refutes itself if the one who puts it forth rejects any possibility that God or Jesus ever did such a thing.
This argument is a protest against the God or Christ who would do such a thing. If you say that it's impossible for a person who lived around 20 or 30 AD to have been responsible for committing these atrocities 1000 years earlier, then you are refuting this argument, or there is no argument.
So the argument is that if God/Christ actually did all these atrocities, then God is awful, or "is in fact a serial, genocidal, infanticidal, filicidal, and pestilential murderer," and believers or worshipers of this God need to have their head examined.
But if God or Christ actually did commit all these atrocities, then you are admitting that Christ had even more power than is depicted in the NT accounts.
So this argument cannot be put forth without first presupposing that Christ had great power.
There are plenty of scenarios for supposing that Christ did not commit these atrocities or have any connection to them, but we're only considering the worst possible scenario.
If this scenario is the truth, then it might be difficult to "worship" Christ, depending on what "worship" means, but one would still fear him and want to have salvation, if there is some salvation possible.
So that's really the only conclusion to draw from this. This is not an argument to refute Christianity, or a "reason to reject Christianity," but only a reason to fear rather than to "worship" Christ, and a reason to believe that he had power and that therefore the miracle accounts in the gospels are likely true.
If you say "no! never!" then you're basically refuting this "reason 5" for rejecting Christianity. This "reason 5" is suggesting that God or Christ really did commit all these atrocities and is pronouncing judgment against Christ and calling him a murderer. But if he did not do these acts, then the argument is refuted because it proposes a false premise. I.e., any conclusion based on it has to be false.
The argument cannot be simply that Christians believe something awful, i.e., that Christ committed these murders. Assuming they do believe this, which they obviously do not, then
the proper response would be not to reject Christianity, but to persuade Christians to stop believing that Christ committed all these atrocities. But instead there is a desperate attempt here to make Christians believe that Christ did commit these atrocities. Why are you trying to make Christians believe that Christ committed atrocities if you don't believe he did?
No, there's only one argument here that makes any sense, and that is that
IF CHRIST DID SOMETHING SO AWFUL (committing all these atrocities), then he's a murderer. But if you start out with that premise, you're also granting that Christ had great power.
You can't have it both ways: You can't hypothesize that Christ is a murderer, and base your argument on that, and then also say that you don't believe it or it's not really true. If you make the argument containing that hypothesis, then you must follow that argument all the way, not backing away from it.
You can't say: but this is what Christians believe, not what I believe. But it's NOT what Christians believe. Even if there is difficulty in explaining those Bible verses and no good explanation can be given, it doesn't follow that they believe God or Christ committed all those atrocities. Rather, you are insisting that they consider that hypothesis, and if you insist on that, then you also have to consider the same hypothesis. If you refuse to consider it seriously (that Christ committed those atrocities 1000 years BC), you cannot demand that anyone else consider it.
Now all the other variations of this argument are weaker than this one. I.e., they are easier to refute than this one.
For example, maybe "God" really did all these atrocities, but not Christ, who had nothing to do with it. Or maybe God had nothing to do with these atrocities, but rather, they were done in the name of God but he really had no part in it. And so on.
There must be hundreds of variations on this kind of argument, about all the atrocities. But we don't really know what role God played in these atrocities, if he played any role. So the worst-case-scenario argument is considered and shown to be either self-refuting, or if the scenario is true, it's reasonable to fear God but perhaps not "worship" him.
So having shown the emptiness or meaninglessness of the very worst possible scenario, we can dismiss all the others as even easier to refute as an argument against Christianity.
So in the extreme, or the worst possible scenario -- if God or Christ committed all those atrocities, then it might be impossible to "worship" him but still appropriate to fear him and hope for salvation if it is available somehow. If this worst possible scenario is true, the conclusion is that Christianity is
more likely to be true, not less likely. So it's not an argument or reason "to reject" Christianity.
It doesn't make sense to say: I reject your belief because if it is true, I wouldn't like it. I.e., I wouldn't like it if God is like that, so therefore God is not like that.
A "reason to reject Christianity" has to begin with "What is the truth?" as the primary question, not "What would a nice God be like?"
