Immoral God and Immoral Bible? (Article II) A Look At Sinful Men In the Bible

[Note: Profanity, Blasphemy, Insults and the Like will result in the poster being banned without warning.  if you wish to disagree with this article, do so in a civilized and respectful manner]

Preliminary Note

This being part II of a series (it was originally going to be a trilogy, but is moving up to five as I edit), this article is limited to the actions of men in the Bible which are considered immoral. The cases I am writing of here are in response to what seems to be a common set of complaints.  Please remember, I can't cover every event in the Bible.  I can't anticipate every accusation.  Nor can I anticipate every misinterpretation of the Old Testament.  So consider this a sample of the ones brought to my attention.  An omission of a reader’s favorite example was not done to "kick it under the carpet" but was done to discuss some of the more common ones.

The incidents most cited are Lot in Sodom, actions in the Book of Judges (from which comes stories many are scandalized by) and the story of David and Bathsheba (from the perspective of David's actions, not God's action [that will be in article IV], so the article will be limited to these. I believe the principles in rejecting these charges of an “immoral Bible” also apply to others.

Now there are acts of men in the Bible being commanded to do certain things by God.  However, since God is the one commanding them, these will be looked at in the next article.

Introduction

What are we to make of those accusations of immoral acts "supported" in the Bible?  The accusation generally runs along the lines that people in the Bible do some wicked things, so the Bible can't be considered a source of authority.

While most of the individuals who take this view are ones who seem to be looking for whatever reasons they can grasp to condemn the beliefs of Christians, that doesn't take away the fact that some people are indeed scandalized — and perhaps earnestly — by some of the actions of characters in the Bible.  What are we to make of what the Bible records?  Does the Bible give sanction to men doing things which seem evil today?

Literalism and Context

To begin with, there is a problem of assumption which, whether sincere or malicious, seems to be a key point of the atheistic scandal with the actions of the Bible, and that is taking things literally without considering the context of the writings.

Just as when I wrote about Biblical Literalists who interpret everything written in the Bible as expressing literal history without considering the genre and the culture of the times, I believe certain atheists do the same thing.  While they do not accept the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, they do seem to think that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally using the understanding of the individual reading it.

In any case, Literalists of both sides don't seem to consider the possibility of their own interpreting being in error.  I think the issue of the objection to “Evil acts of the Bible” is of the same mindset as the Biblical Literalist, but with the opposite conclusion. 

Both hold everything is intended to be literally true from the interpretation of the reader.  The difference seems to be that because the Biblical Literalist knows God exists but takes everything literally, he must try to defend everything done in the Bible.  Meanwhile the atheist, who attacks certain actions in the Bible, assumes God does not exist and holds everything is understood literally and thinks all of the actions viewed are seen as being good, even if the acts are bad.

Both mindsets fail to consider whether the Bible passages were understood properly.  Looking at the charges, I find most of the attacks against Scripture on the "Bad God, Bad Bible" grounds do not understand what it was like to live in a culture of semi-nomadic Middle Easterners some 3,000 years ago.

This is the underlying principle to these accusations, which I believe can be demonstrated as false by looking at the Scriptures themselves.

Bad Acts in the Bible?  Of Course.  Approving Bad Acts?  Not At All.

Let's start with one of the more appalling incidents in the Bible, an event taking place Sodom in Genesis 19 which leads up to the destruction of that city.  What generally shocks the reader is how Lot tries to dissuade the inhabitants of Sodom… by offering his daughters instead:

^1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, ^2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” ^3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. ^4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ^5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ^6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, ^7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. ^8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Now I have heard people point to this and say that this was an evil act on the part of Lot to offer his daughters to be raped, and they argue this proves the Bible can't be good.  The problem is: where does it say what Lot did was good?  This is an assumption which one does not find proof for in the Bible.

Now it is true that the customs of the time and region (for all the region, not just the predecessors of the Jews) held the hospitality offered to a guest to be sacrosanct, but we see nothing in this passage to indicate Lot was doing good by offering his two daughters to be abused instead.  Lot may have sincerely thought this was his duty of course, but it does not follow that such an act was good before God or to the writer of Genesis or to the reader at the time of the book being written.  Haydock's commentary on the Old Testament mentions this comment by Menochius:

Some allow that, under so great a perturbation of mind, he consented to an action which could never be allowed, though it was a less evil.

Now I don't think it was a "less evil" myself, but the commentary raises an interesting point.  We have an account of what happened, but not of the motivations behind it.  The atheist may argue that there is no proof this was Lot's motivation.  The response is: Neither is there proof that Lot's actions were seen as good.

This then is the issue: We have an account of what happened, but not why it happened or motivations for the people acting.  So to try to argue the Bible thought Lot's action was good is to commit eisegesis (inserting meaning into the text), and commits the fallacy of argument from silence ("there is nothing disproving what I say, therefore it must be true").  In light of what the Bible will go on to tell us about the evil of prostitution and fornication and rape, it seems more likely that the ancient reader of these texts would have seen them as appalling was well.

In short, all the ink (or bytes) spilled in indignation over this is based on something assumed but not proven: That the Bible was portraying Lot as behaving rightly.  I find it interesting that in Genesis 19:30-38, we see this was not the end of the folly of Lot and his family.

So before saying "How wicked the Bible is" one should first be certain they interpret it correctly, knowing the message it is seeking to convey (The depravity of the people of Sodom being punished by God in this case) and not assume that everything which occurs was met with approval.

The Book of Judges Speaks of Good… and Evil

The Book of Judges is another one which has many scandalous actions which offend our modern day sensibilities.  In reading this we need to remember we are seeing tales of depravity, not tales of heroes, and we see the description of a spiritual breakdown of Israelite society after the death of Joshua.  We are basically seeing Judges (non dynastic military leaders of Israel in times of crisis) who are called to deliver the Israelites from oppression.  These judges are people who are portrayed as being flawed individuals who choose wrong things at times.  Samson, for example, seems to be more of an anti-hero than a hero for example.  The example of Jephthah and his daughter (Judges 11) tells us of a man who, in making a vow, did something explicitly forbidden by the Law: Human sacrifice.

Those who make the claim of the Bible promoting wicked behavior tend to make use of these verses concerning Jephthah to claim God sanctioned this act:

^30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, ^31 then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.”

^32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand.

To say that God granted victory because of the vow is to commit a post hoc fallacy.  If God intended Jephthah to deliver the Israelites from oppression, He could have delivered them in spite of Jephthah's vow.  The assumption that God granted victory because of the vow is to assume a God who can be swayed by bribes.  This is an interpretation without evidence to support it.

Notice at the end of the chapter (verses 39-40) we see that the action was remembered with mourning for the daughter, not the anime-like "tragic but necessary action":

And it became a custom in Israel ^that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

So it goes.  In each of these chapters we see people of differing moral qualities.  God may call these Judges to help Israel in times of oppression, but nowhere do we see any praise for the wicked actions.

This becomes especially clear from Chapter 17 to the end of the book (Judges 21:25).  In this section we see a sort of lament to bookend the accounts of the people written about in them.  Chapters 17-19  in this section begins each chapter with "In those days, when there was no king in Israel" and each chapter shows practices which we would find reprehensible. (Chapter 20 does not because it is a continuation of chapter 19).  Commentators on Scripture refer to this time as a time of anarchy in Israel where there was no authority to enforce the Law.

In these chapters we see accounts of idolatry (chapter 17), banditry (chapter 18), cowardice, rape and brutal murder of a concubine (chapter 19), an intertribal war (chapter 20) and the wink/nod at the abduction of young women to be wives for the almost exterminated Benjaminites (Chapter 21).  The book of Judges concludes, saying: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

However in none of these sections do we see anyone tell us God commanded them to do these things, or see the Scriptures say these things were good.  Rather we see numerous acts of sin with the refrain of how, because there was no king, people did what they thought was right.  Men may make vows to do wicked things, and may even be ignorant of the evil they are doing.  However, as we see no evidence of approval for these acts, and indeed the book of Judges follows the Torah which condemn them, it seems to be baseless to say this book endorses immorality.

The book of Judges seems more of a condemnation of moral anarchy of Israel during these times than an endorsement of the behavior within the book, and as such I don’t consider the accusations made of a "wicked Bible" using this book as valid.  Such an accusation seems to be taking the events out of context.

King David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite

This incident contains both an act of a man, King David, and an act of God spoken through the prophet Nathan. I will deal with the human aspect in this article and the Divine aspect in Article IV.

I was surprised that some atheists have pointed to this sordid case as an example of a Bad Bible given how it turns out.  However, since it has been brought to my attention, we can look at it.  The story is found in 2 Samuel 11-12.  The gist of it is that David stays at home when his armies are at war, sees a woman bathing on the roof of a nearby building, has sex with her and gets her pregnant.  He tries to conceal this sin by attempting to get her husband to go home and sleep with Bathsheba (to cover up the sin). When Uriah shows himself to be too devoted to go home while his men are in the field, David orders him to be killed in battle.

Pretty reprehensible, right? Some atheists have used this as a charge against the Bible. After all, David was a Hero and he did something wicked.

Unfortunately for this argument, the Bible also calls this reprehensible.  The prophet Nathan goes to David and we have the following account in 2 Sam 12:

^1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ^2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ^3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ^4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” ^5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ^6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

^7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; ^8 and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. ^9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. ^10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ ^11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. ^12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’” ^13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ^14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

Again, this act of immorality was condemned and not condoned by God. Indeed, God sent Nathan to carry His word to David. Those who think such a verse promotes immorality seem to base such an idea on this line of thought:

1. The Bible speaks approvingly of David
2. David did evil
3. Therefore the Bible approves of the evil David did.

But the whole point of Chapter 12 is God did not approve of what David did and, in fact, decreed punishment.  Since this punishment leads to actions of God (and a new set of objections against the Bible), that part will be discussed in Article IV of this series.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the actions of men which are pointed to in the Bible as being immoral are in fact considered by believers to be immoral.  Because of this, the accusations of the "Immoral Bible" on these grounds are more of a straw man argument than anything legitimate.  Just because the Bible speaks of men who obeyed God does not mean they were sinless.  The entire point of the Bible is that humanity is alienated from God and needs salvation.

Only through the taking things out of context and failing to understand how the Christian reads the Bible can the accusation be made that the Christian approves of these actions.

With the next two articles (needs to be split… currently over 6000 words), which I suspect will cover the issues most will be interested in, we will look at things which were not done by men on their own action, but were the commands of God. 

Article III will be about discussing certain principles Christians believe when looking at the commands of God.  Article IV will then be about looking at the actual commands of God on the topics of God's judgment of David and on the topic of slavery. Articles IV and V will be based on the principles discussed in Article III.

Immoral God and Immoral Bible? (Article II) A Look At Sinful Men In the Bible

[Note: Profanity, Blasphemy, Insults and the Like will result in the poster being banned without warning.  if you wish to disagree with this article, do so in a civilized and respectful manner]

Preliminary Note

This being part II of a series (it was originally going to be a trilogy, but is moving up to five as I edit), this article is limited to the actions of men in the Bible which are considered immoral. The cases I am writing of here are in response to what seems to be a common set of complaints.  Please remember, I can't cover every event in the Bible.  I can't anticipate every accusation.  Nor can I anticipate every misinterpretation of the Old Testament.  So consider this a sample of the ones brought to my attention.  An omission of a reader’s favorite example was not done to "kick it under the carpet" but was done to discuss some of the more common ones.

The incidents most cited are Lot in Sodom, actions in the Book of Judges (from which comes stories many are scandalized by) and the story of David and Bathsheba (from the perspective of David's actions, not God's action [that will be in article IV], so the article will be limited to these. I believe the principles in rejecting these charges of an “immoral Bible” also apply to others.

Now there are acts of men in the Bible being commanded to do certain things by God.  However, since God is the one commanding them, these will be looked at in the next article.

Introduction

What are we to make of those accusations of immoral acts "supported" in the Bible?  The accusation generally runs along the lines that people in the Bible do some wicked things, so the Bible can't be considered a source of authority.

While most of the individuals who take this view are ones who seem to be looking for whatever reasons they can grasp to condemn the beliefs of Christians, that doesn't take away the fact that some people are indeed scandalized — and perhaps earnestly — by some of the actions of characters in the Bible.  What are we to make of what the Bible records?  Does the Bible give sanction to men doing things which seem evil today?

Literalism and Context

To begin with, there is a problem of assumption which, whether sincere or malicious, seems to be a key point of the atheistic scandal with the actions of the Bible, and that is taking things literally without considering the context of the writings.

Just as when I wrote about Biblical Literalists who interpret everything written in the Bible as expressing literal history without considering the genre and the culture of the times, I believe certain atheists do the same thing.  While they do not accept the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, they do seem to think that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally using the understanding of the individual reading it.

In any case, Literalists of both sides don't seem to consider the possibility of their own interpreting being in error.  I think the issue of the objection to “Evil acts of the Bible” is of the same mindset as the Biblical Literalist, but with the opposite conclusion. 

Both hold everything is intended to be literally true from the interpretation of the reader.  The difference seems to be that because the Biblical Literalist knows God exists but takes everything literally, he must try to defend everything done in the Bible.  Meanwhile the atheist, who attacks certain actions in the Bible, assumes God does not exist and holds everything is understood literally and thinks all of the actions viewed are seen as being good, even if the acts are bad.

Both mindsets fail to consider whether the Bible passages were understood properly.  Looking at the charges, I find most of the attacks against Scripture on the "Bad God, Bad Bible" grounds do not understand what it was like to live in a culture of semi-nomadic Middle Easterners some 3,000 years ago.

This is the underlying principle to these accusations, which I believe can be demonstrated as false by looking at the Scriptures themselves.

Bad Acts in the Bible?  Of Course.  Approving Bad Acts?  Not At All.

Let's start with one of the more appalling incidents in the Bible, an event taking place Sodom in Genesis 19 which leads up to the destruction of that city.  What generally shocks the reader is how Lot tries to dissuade the inhabitants of Sodom… by offering his daughters instead:

^1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, ^2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” ^3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. ^4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ^5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ^6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, ^7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. ^8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Now I have heard people point to this and say that this was an evil act on the part of Lot to offer his daughters to be raped, and they argue this proves the Bible can't be good.  The problem is: where does it say what Lot did was good?  This is an assumption which one does not find proof for in the Bible.

Now it is true that the customs of the time and region (for all the region, not just the predecessors of the Jews) held the hospitality offered to a guest to be sacrosanct, but we see nothing in this passage to indicate Lot was doing good by offering his two daughters to be abused instead.  Lot may have sincerely thought this was his duty of course, but it does not follow that such an act was good before God or to the writer of Genesis or to the reader at the time of the book being written.  Haydock's commentary on the Old Testament mentions this comment by Menochius:

Some allow that, under so great a perturbation of mind, he consented to an action which could never be allowed, though it was a less evil.

Now I don't think it was a "less evil" myself, but the commentary raises an interesting point.  We have an account of what happened, but not of the motivations behind it.  The atheist may argue that there is no proof this was Lot's motivation.  The response is: Neither is there proof that Lot's actions were seen as good.

This then is the issue: We have an account of what happened, but not why it happened or motivations for the people acting.  So to try to argue the Bible thought Lot's action was good is to commit eisegesis (inserting meaning into the text), and commits the fallacy of argument from silence ("there is nothing disproving what I say, therefore it must be true").  In light of what the Bible will go on to tell us about the evil of prostitution and fornication and rape, it seems more likely that the ancient reader of these texts would have seen them as appalling was well.

In short, all the ink (or bytes) spilled in indignation over this is based on something assumed but not proven: That the Bible was portraying Lot as behaving rightly.  I find it interesting that in Genesis 19:30-38, we see this was not the end of the folly of Lot and his family.

So before saying "How wicked the Bible is" one should first be certain they interpret it correctly, knowing the message it is seeking to convey (The depravity of the people of Sodom being punished by God in this case) and not assume that everything which occurs was met with approval.

The Book of Judges Speaks of Good… and Evil

The Book of Judges is another one which has many scandalous actions which offend our modern day sensibilities.  In reading this we need to remember we are seeing tales of depravity, not tales of heroes, and we see the description of a spiritual breakdown of Israelite society after the death of Joshua.  We are basically seeing Judges (non dynastic military leaders of Israel in times of crisis) who are called to deliver the Israelites from oppression.  These judges are people who are portrayed as being flawed individuals who choose wrong things at times.  Samson, for example, seems to be more of an anti-hero than a hero for example.  The example of Jephthah and his daughter (Judges 11) tells us of a man who, in making a vow, did something explicitly forbidden by the Law: Human sacrifice.

Those who make the claim of the Bible promoting wicked behavior tend to make use of these verses concerning Jephthah to claim God sanctioned this act:

^30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, ^31 then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.”

^32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand.

To say that God granted victory because of the vow is to commit a post hoc fallacy.  If God intended Jephthah to deliver the Israelites from oppression, He could have delivered them in spite of Jephthah's vow.  The assumption that God granted victory because of the vow is to assume a God who can be swayed by bribes.  This is an interpretation without evidence to support it.

Notice at the end of the chapter (verses 39-40) we see that the action was remembered with mourning for the daughter, not the anime-like "tragic but necessary action":

And it became a custom in Israel ^that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

So it goes.  In each of these chapters we see people of differing moral qualities.  God may call these Judges to help Israel in times of oppression, but nowhere do we see any praise for the wicked actions.

This becomes especially clear from Chapter 17 to the end of the book (Judges 21:25).  In this section we see a sort of lament to bookend the accounts of the people written about in them.  Chapters 17-19  in this section begins each chapter with "In those days, when there was no king in Israel" and each chapter shows practices which we would find reprehensible. (Chapter 20 does not because it is a continuation of chapter 19).  Commentators on Scripture refer to this time as a time of anarchy in Israel where there was no authority to enforce the Law.

In these chapters we see accounts of idolatry (chapter 17), banditry (chapter 18), cowardice, rape and brutal murder of a concubine (chapter 19), an intertribal war (chapter 20) and the wink/nod at the abduction of young women to be wives for the almost exterminated Benjaminites (Chapter 21).  The book of Judges concludes, saying: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

However in none of these sections do we see anyone tell us God commanded them to do these things, or see the Scriptures say these things were good.  Rather we see numerous acts of sin with the refrain of how, because there was no king, people did what they thought was right.  Men may make vows to do wicked things, and may even be ignorant of the evil they are doing.  However, as we see no evidence of approval for these acts, and indeed the book of Judges follows the Torah which condemn them, it seems to be baseless to say this book endorses immorality.

The book of Judges seems more of a condemnation of moral anarchy of Israel during these times than an endorsement of the behavior within the book, and as such I don’t consider the accusations made of a "wicked Bible" using this book as valid.  Such an accusation seems to be taking the events out of context.

King David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite

This incident contains both an act of a man, King David, and an act of God spoken through the prophet Nathan. I will deal with the human aspect in this article and the Divine aspect in Article IV.

I was surprised that some atheists have pointed to this sordid case as an example of a Bad Bible given how it turns out.  However, since it has been brought to my attention, we can look at it.  The story is found in 2 Samuel 11-12.  The gist of it is that David stays at home when his armies are at war, sees a woman bathing on the roof of a nearby building, has sex with her and gets her pregnant.  He tries to conceal this sin by attempting to get her husband to go home and sleep with Bathsheba (to cover up the sin). When Uriah shows himself to be too devoted to go home while his men are in the field, David orders him to be killed in battle.

Pretty reprehensible, right? Some atheists have used this as a charge against the Bible. After all, David was a Hero and he did something wicked.

Unfortunately for this argument, the Bible also calls this reprehensible.  The prophet Nathan goes to David and we have the following account in 2 Sam 12:

^1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ^2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ^3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ^4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” ^5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ^6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

^7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; ^8 and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. ^9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. ^10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ ^11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. ^12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’” ^13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ^14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

Again, this act of immorality was condemned and not condoned by God. Indeed, God sent Nathan to carry His word to David. Those who think such a verse promotes immorality seem to base such an idea on this line of thought:

1. The Bible speaks approvingly of David
2. David did evil
3. Therefore the Bible approves of the evil David did.

But the whole point of Chapter 12 is God did not approve of what David did and, in fact, decreed punishment.  Since this punishment leads to actions of God (and a new set of objections against the Bible), that part will be discussed in Article IV of this series.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the actions of men which are pointed to in the Bible as being immoral are in fact considered by believers to be immoral.  Because of this, the accusations of the "Immoral Bible" on these grounds are more of a straw man argument than anything legitimate.  Just because the Bible speaks of men who obeyed God does not mean they were sinless.  The entire point of the Bible is that humanity is alienated from God and needs salvation.

Only through the taking things out of context and failing to understand how the Christian reads the Bible can the accusation be made that the Christian approves of these actions.

With the next two articles (needs to be split… currently over 6000 words), which I suspect will cover the issues most will be interested in, we will look at things which were not done by men on their own action, but were the commands of God. 

Article III will be about discussing certain principles Christians believe when looking at the commands of God.  Article IV will then be about looking at the actual commands of God on the topics of God's judgment of David and on the topic of slavery. Articles IV and V will be based on the principles discussed in Article III.

Immoral God and Immoral Bible? (Article I): A Look At What Morality Is

[Note: Insulting, Profane and Blasphemous comments will result in the poster being banned without warning.  If you wish to disagree with the materials here, you may do so, provided it is done civilly and respectfully].

What are we to make of the accusations of certain individuals who claim that actions in the Bible are in fact immoral, and therefore negate the claims of goodness?

To me, it seems to be in part a rejection of sola scriptura which gives primacy to the Bible while keeping to the claims that the personal interpretation of the Bible is all that is needed.

Another part of it seems based in seeking to reject the claims of moral authority of the Christians who invoke the Bible.

The problem, of course, is the issue of understanding what Christians hold. An attack on something not understood will generally fail to attack what Christians believe. Thus, in attacks on the Catholic Church for example, we often see attacks on personal conduct of people in authority. This would be valid if we held that being in the Church keeps people from sinning. However, since we do recognize that people can sin if they act against what is required, such an attack is an irrelevant appeal unless it can be demonstrated that immoral actions were done because of Christian teaching, instead of being in opposition to it. Yet most people who make such an attack do not even know what the Church teaches to be able to discern what is a part of teaching and what is against it.

Likewise in the attack of the Bible, we see many accusations made on the individuals in the Old Testament by people who do not have a clear sense of what the Bible teaches and why. Therefore we see these attacks based on what a person thinks it means. Such people do not distinguish between acts of men disobeying God and acts of men obeying God.

However, if they do not understand, how can they critique? The concept is as ludicrous as it would be for me to critique quantum physics based on what I see on Wikipedia, creationist sites and my own interpretation of a textbook of quantum physics.

Atheists may reject the Christian assumptions, but that is irrelevant here. If we wish to know “How can the Christians possibly support this?” we need to understand what Christians understand about morality. That is the focus on this article.

Preliminary: The Limiting of the Boundaries for This Article

This article is intended to be the beginning of a series which looks at certain accusations of atheists which claims that the Bible is an example of wicked deeds and a wicked acting God.  However, before looking of the acts of the men of the Bible (normally the focus is on the Old Testament) and the commands of God, we first must make some considerations of what morality is, as it is senseless to begin a discussion of a topic without setting forth what is meant.

So for those who are waiting for me to delve into the gory details of the Bible will need to wait for me to lay down this framework in this first article. Article II will deal with the acts of men in the Old Testament. Article III will deal with the commands of God, and will also consider acts of men obeying commands of God (as opposed to men who act on their own in Article II).

A Caveat: What Christian Beliefs I Am Acting Under

While I am limiting the intents of this article, let me clarify that I am discussing what the idea of morality means to the Christian in my Catholic faith, to the best of my ability.  Any difference between what I say and what the Church teaches is accidental, as I accept and submit to the teaching of the Catholic Church and do not intend to claim anything in contradiction to it.

There are of course some different theories in varying Christian denominations, and even non-Christian interpretations (Jewish, Muslim for example) of the Bible, but where they run contrary to what my Faith believes, I feel no obligation to defend them.

So please don't point to some obscure sect that holds some idea which contradicts to the Catholic faith and claims it speaks for all Christians.

What Is Morality?

To discuss morality, first we need to understand where the speaker is coming from. So let me start with the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Morality is generally defined as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.” So the idea of morality is based on the premise that there is good and bad behavior to begin with. This implies a sort of standard. Without this sense, there is nothing to appeal to other than personal preference.

Of course, if personal preference is all there is to consider, then charges of an immoral God or an immoral Bible become meaningless, and those charges become nothing more than “I don’t like what I read here.”

So those who deny morality and claim the Bible is immoral (this is a subset of those who attack the Bible, but is not all people who attack the Bible) are right off the bat in self contradiction, and such a view is not worth discussing. Any claim that the Bible is immoral has to recognize that there is moral and immoral behavior.

Morality and Ethics

I think I should start with the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia which begins its entry on Morality this way:

Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.

This ideal governing our free actions is common to the race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics, there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life.

I think this is a good distinction.  There are certainly differences in the systems of ethics, and not all systems are equally valid. However the underlying concepts call certain things good and other things evil.  Most societies hold that Murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another) is wrong.  There may be a divergence in deciding what may be considered justifiable killing, but we don't normally see a healthy society which openly accepts the committing of unlawful killings.  Indeed, societies which do tolerate this are generally seen to be grossly disordered. 

So while atheists and theists may disagree on why an act is wrong, generally speaking, certain concepts are held by most people to be wrong and never to be done (rape, murder, slavery etc).  There are a few agnostics and atheists I have encountered who deny this, but it seems this denial is more based on the avoiding the issue of where morality comes from rather than an honest belief that Hitler and the Dalai Lama are the same.

Morality and Natural Law

Natural Law is what members of my faith call this sort of recognition of certain issues of morality. So how do we understand this?  St. Thomas Aquinas discusses this (Summa Theologica I-II Q94 a.2) and believes there to be an underlying principle.  In discussing the idea of apprehension he says there is generally a major overarching principle from which all other principles derive.  St. Thomas reasons that the major apprehension of natural law is as follows:

Now as being is the first thing that falls under the apprehension simply, so good is the first thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action: since every agent acts for an end under the aspect of good. Consequently the first principle of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that "good is that which all things seek after." Hence this is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man's good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.

Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.

…

Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.

(This citation is abbreviated as St. Thomas discusses many things, but follow the link above if you want to see the article in entirety)

Ultimately then, acts of morality are to do good and, as a logical counterpart, avoid evil.  This means to do good and avoid evil both in regards to oneself and to others.  That man has a natural tendency towards self preservation and procreation indicates these things are not evil, though they can be abused by either excessive emphasis or contempt for it or for contempt for others.

However, if God exists (which I believe), then doing good and avoiding evil as the principle of Natural Law must also be extended to God, and doing evil against God is to be held with great severity. Why is this?

The Greater the Existence, The Greater the Wrong Done

Doing wrong is seen as more or less severe depending on the existence of the individual.  If I apply weed killer to a plant, I don't normally suffer consequences.  If I kill a cat (tragically common among teenagers it seems) people may show disgust, but the legal repercussions will be less severe than if I kill a person.  Likewise, while the murder of any human person is wrong, society distinguishes between the accidental killing during the self defense against a vagrant who intended harm, and the deliberate assassination of the president of the United States.  One is self defense.  The other is regicide.

This isn't classism of any sort.  Rather we recognize that there is a difference between the human beings and animals, and we recognize that the unlawful killing of any person is wrong, but also that the unlawful killing of a ruler is also an attack on the state and not just on the individual. In this case, the harm affects more people. Thus the punishment is more severe.

Because of this, when we remember that Christians believe that God exists, it is reasonable to suppose that an action against God is even more serious than an act against man or against an animal because of the existence and authority of God.

The flip side of this is that the atheist who denies that God exists disdains punishments for actions against God because they believe nothing is there to offend.

However, since Christians believe God exists, those who want to say “How can you believe in a God who does X?” needs to remember that the Christian view of what the Bible relates is based on the view that God exists and can be sinned against.

If we didn’t believe that, the influence of the Bible would be a moot point… as we wouldn’t be Christians to begin with.

Considerations of Euthyphro and the Origin of Morality

With this in mind, we should ask ourselves about the origin of the Natural Law itself, as opposed to the idea of Natural Law… in other words, where does this natural law come from?

Curiously enough, the questions of this type are quite ancient.  The Ancient Greeks believed in a pantheon of deities, but believed that the idea of what was right and what was wrong went beyond their pantheon.  Since to them, gods were finite (greater than man, but not infinite), we had the dilemma of Socrates to Euthyphro, where Socrates was enquiring about a man attempting to prosecute his father in a court of law, claiming it was the pious thing to do. Socrates’ dilemma was:

The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

The dilemma Socrates uses is we have to come to a decision: If a thing is pious because the gods love it, is this not arbitrary? Could they not change their minds?  And if the gods love it because it is pious, does this not mean there is something above the gods?

Some Christians unfortunately, try to answer this by saying that morality is good because God commands it, which opens them up to the charge of the atheist that such a God could change His mind and command evil… and indeed has done so when they point to the commands of the Old Testament.

The common explanation of atheists I have discussed this with or read is: since there is no god, morality comes from ourselves, either biologically or through society.

However, the elimination of the existence of God does not eliminate the dilemma of Socrates' question.  We simply replace "gods" with "man" or "society" and we have the same dilemma.  If morality is ingrained by society, then we have morals which can be changed by society.  If it is outside of us, what is it and why does it bind?

Is Morality From Society?

The problem with this view is, if morality is given to us by society, then those who support the status quo are good and those who oppose it are bad.  This would mean the rebel is a person of evil, and the person who doesn't make waves is good. This would make the Civil Rights movement in America wrong, and would make those opposition groups in Nazi Germany wrong as well.

Yet our experience is the opposite.  We recognize that often it is the person who speaks out against the practices of society that is considered moral.  At other times, a society fights to protect what it considers good against an immoral threat from leaders who act against this good.

Both examples demonstrate a view that morality is seen as being outside of society.

Is Morality From Biology?

The problem with this idea is that, if Morality is from biology, then things which promote life (such as self preservation) are good and things which harm it are bad.  Now this works in cases of society where the immoral act threatens the life of others.  However, it falls short in dealing with issues where the individual sacrifices himself in the name of what is right: That we are to prefer suffering to doing an act of evil.  Consider this example:

Two soldiers are captured and are told that one of them is to be killed.  One of them is told he will go free if he tortures the other man to death.  If he refuses, he will be tortured and killed instead.  Ought he to accept this offer?

Some systems of ethics might say this is a good thing to do, but most of us would consider the person who said "yes" to be a horrible person.  This demonstrates that morality is not the same as a biological instinct to protect the herd.  The soldier, if he accepts, does not harm society.  He protects himself at the cost of another, but if he does not he will die himself.

The Christian idea is that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil, and that the soldier would be doing evil to consent to the dilemma given.  We can see this in Matthew 10:28 which tells us:

^28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Because we believe in an immortal soul, we recognize that death is not the worst thing which can happen, and the repercussions of what we do have an effect on us which exists after death. Because of this, it is not permissible to do evil to spare one’s own life.

We also recognize that it is never permissible to be cowardly. If another person is in danger and I walk away because I do not want to risk harm, I am scorned and not considered moral. However showing the courage to do what ought to be done can put our lives at risk. Because of this, self preservation is not the origin of morality.

The Christian Moral Theology Shows the False Dilemma of Socrates

Neither the idea of Society nor the idea of Biology answers Socrates’ dilemma. However some may wonder how Christians avoid either saying there is something beyond God (if God loves a thing because it is good) or that God is arbitrary (if a thing is good because God loves it). So how does the Christian answer this question?

The error of Socrates was his assumption was an Either-Or error, which he believed was between absolute and opposing premises. What he failed to consider was: That the measure of good and evil was not an arbitrary decision, but the reflection of the nature of what God is.  If God is infinite and the fullness of goodness, then that which is good reflects the nature of God while that which is evil acts in opposition to the nature of God.

In this, we see that the Christian understanding of Natural Law claims it reflects the goodness of God, and says evil acts go against the goodness of God.

The Christian believes God exists, and as a result, believes there is an objective rule as to what is good or evil. Some societies may err through no fault of their own when they try to follow the natural law, while others display contempt for the natural law. How God judges will depend on what the individual or the society could have known, not what was impossible for them to know. We do believe that all people at least know the Natural Law even when they err or sin in following it, as St. Paul tells us in Romans 2:12ff:

^12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ^13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. ^14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ^15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them ^16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I find this a good thing to remember in the face of those atheists who create a straw man argument that “morality did not come from Christianity.” (I understand Dawkins has made an argument along these lines). We don’t believe it came from Christianity, we believe it came from God, who made it known to the world through Natural Law and through the Jews and Christians by way of Revelation.

Therefore, when we consider Natural Law, it is hardly a quandary that the atheist may deny God exists and still tries to behave in a moral way, but we may challenge him to explain why morality is binding.

Conclusion

I believe this gives us a framework to use in understanding how God judges the nations – not based on the Torah for those who do not know it, but based on what they could know and had an obligation to do. However a nation which knows, for example, murder is evil and refuses to ask the question on whether the abortion of the unborn fetus is murder is in fact guilty of refusing to acknowledge good and evil. Why? Because all people are required to seek the truth, and the refusal to seek the truth makes one culpable.

With this framework in mind, we can move on, in Article II, to looking at some of the accusations made about the Bible and acts done within its pages. Because we believe there is objective truth about right and wrong, and that God exists and is good, we need to look at actions in the Bible through this view in order to understand what the Christians believe, rather than to assume that Christians accept actions from the perspectives atheists assume.

The refusal to do this and to insist on one’s own interpretation is to fall into the error of bigotry which GK Chesterton once described as follows:

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

So it would not be bigotry for the atheist to believe his position is correct. However, it would be bigotry for him to be unable to consider whether there are errors in his assumptions which led to his conclusions.

[Article II in this series will be on the actions of men in the Old Testament].

Immoral God and Immoral Bible? (Article I): A Look At What Morality Is

[Note: Insulting, Profane and Blasphemous comments will result in the poster being banned without warning.  If you wish to disagree with the materials here, you may do so, provided it is done civilly and respectfully].

What are we to make of the accusations of certain individuals who claim that actions in the Bible are in fact immoral, and therefore negate the claims of goodness?

To me, it seems to be in part a rejection of sola scriptura which gives primacy to the Bible while keeping to the claims that the personal interpretation of the Bible is all that is needed.

Another part of it seems based in seeking to reject the claims of moral authority of the Christians who invoke the Bible.

The problem, of course, is the issue of understanding what Christians hold. An attack on something not understood will generally fail to attack what Christians believe. Thus, in attacks on the Catholic Church for example, we often see attacks on personal conduct of people in authority. This would be valid if we held that being in the Church keeps people from sinning. However, since we do recognize that people can sin if they act against what is required, such an attack is an irrelevant appeal unless it can be demonstrated that immoral actions were done because of Christian teaching, instead of being in opposition to it. Yet most people who make such an attack do not even know what the Church teaches to be able to discern what is a part of teaching and what is against it.

Likewise in the attack of the Bible, we see many accusations made on the individuals in the Old Testament by people who do not have a clear sense of what the Bible teaches and why. Therefore we see these attacks based on what a person thinks it means. Such people do not distinguish between acts of men disobeying God and acts of men obeying God.

However, if they do not understand, how can they critique? The concept is as ludicrous as it would be for me to critique quantum physics based on what I see on Wikipedia, creationist sites and my own interpretation of a textbook of quantum physics.

Atheists may reject the Christian assumptions, but that is irrelevant here. If we wish to know “How can the Christians possibly support this?” we need to understand what Christians understand about morality. That is the focus on this article.

Preliminary: The Limiting of the Boundaries for This Article

This article is intended to be the beginning of a series which looks at certain accusations of atheists which claims that the Bible is an example of wicked deeds and a wicked acting God.  However, before looking of the acts of the men of the Bible (normally the focus is on the Old Testament) and the commands of God, we first must make some considerations of what morality is, as it is senseless to begin a discussion of a topic without setting forth what is meant.

So for those who are waiting for me to delve into the gory details of the Bible will need to wait for me to lay down this framework in this first article. Article II will deal with the acts of men in the Old Testament. Article III will deal with the commands of God, and will also consider acts of men obeying commands of God (as opposed to men who act on their own in Article II).

A Caveat: What Christian Beliefs I Am Acting Under

While I am limiting the intents of this article, let me clarify that I am discussing what the idea of morality means to the Christian in my Catholic faith, to the best of my ability.  Any difference between what I say and what the Church teaches is accidental, as I accept and submit to the teaching of the Catholic Church and do not intend to claim anything in contradiction to it.

There are of course some different theories in varying Christian denominations, and even non-Christian interpretations (Jewish, Muslim for example) of the Bible, but where they run contrary to what my Faith believes, I feel no obligation to defend them.

So please don't point to some obscure sect that holds some idea which contradicts to the Catholic faith and claims it speaks for all Christians.

What Is Morality?

To discuss morality, first we need to understand where the speaker is coming from. So let me start with the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Morality is generally defined as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.” So the idea of morality is based on the premise that there is good and bad behavior to begin with. This implies a sort of standard. Without this sense, there is nothing to appeal to other than personal preference.

Of course, if personal preference is all there is to consider, then charges of an immoral God or an immoral Bible become meaningless, and those charges become nothing more than “I don’t like what I read here.”

So those who deny morality and claim the Bible is immoral (this is a subset of those who attack the Bible, but is not all people who attack the Bible) are right off the bat in self contradiction, and such a view is not worth discussing. Any claim that the Bible is immoral has to recognize that there is moral and immoral behavior.

Morality and Ethics

I think I should start with the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia which begins its entry on Morality this way:

Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.

This ideal governing our free actions is common to the race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics, there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life.

I think this is a good distinction.  There are certainly differences in the systems of ethics, and not all systems are equally valid. However the underlying concepts call certain things good and other things evil.  Most societies hold that Murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another) is wrong.  There may be a divergence in deciding what may be considered justifiable killing, but we don't normally see a healthy society which openly accepts the committing of unlawful killings.  Indeed, societies which do tolerate this are generally seen to be grossly disordered. 

So while atheists and theists may disagree on why an act is wrong, generally speaking, certain concepts are held by most people to be wrong and never to be done (rape, murder, slavery etc).  There are a few agnostics and atheists I have encountered who deny this, but it seems this denial is more based on the avoiding the issue of where morality comes from rather than an honest belief that Hitler and the Dalai Lama are the same.

Morality and Natural Law

Natural Law is what members of my faith call this sort of recognition of certain issues of morality. So how do we understand this?  St. Thomas Aquinas discusses this (Summa Theologica I-II Q94 a.2) and believes there to be an underlying principle.  In discussing the idea of apprehension he says there is generally a major overarching principle from which all other principles derive.  St. Thomas reasons that the major apprehension of natural law is as follows:

Now as being is the first thing that falls under the apprehension simply, so good is the first thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action: since every agent acts for an end under the aspect of good. Consequently the first principle of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that "good is that which all things seek after." Hence this is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man's good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.

Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance.

…

Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.

(This citation is abbreviated as St. Thomas discusses many things, but follow the link above if you want to see the article in entirety)

Ultimately then, acts of morality are to do good and, as a logical counterpart, avoid evil.  This means to do good and avoid evil both in regards to oneself and to others.  That man has a natural tendency towards self preservation and procreation indicates these things are not evil, though they can be abused by either excessive emphasis or contempt for it or for contempt for others.

However, if God exists (which I believe), then doing good and avoiding evil as the principle of Natural Law must also be extended to God, and doing evil against God is to be held with great severity. Why is this?

The Greater the Existence, The Greater the Wrong Done

Doing wrong is seen as more or less severe depending on the existence of the individual.  If I apply weed killer to a plant, I don't normally suffer consequences.  If I kill a cat (tragically common among teenagers it seems) people may show disgust, but the legal repercussions will be less severe than if I kill a person.  Likewise, while the murder of any human person is wrong, society distinguishes between the accidental killing during the self defense against a vagrant who intended harm, and the deliberate assassination of the president of the United States.  One is self defense.  The other is regicide.

This isn't classism of any sort.  Rather we recognize that there is a difference between the human beings and animals, and we recognize that the unlawful killing of any person is wrong, but also that the unlawful killing of a ruler is also an attack on the state and not just on the individual. In this case, the harm affects more people. Thus the punishment is more severe.

Because of this, when we remember that Christians believe that God exists, it is reasonable to suppose that an action against God is even more serious than an act against man or against an animal because of the existence and authority of God.

The flip side of this is that the atheist who denies that God exists disdains punishments for actions against God because they believe nothing is there to offend.

However, since Christians believe God exists, those who want to say “How can you believe in a God who does X?” needs to remember that the Christian view of what the Bible relates is based on the view that God exists and can be sinned against.

If we didn’t believe that, the influence of the Bible would be a moot point… as we wouldn’t be Christians to begin with.

Considerations of Euthyphro and the Origin of Morality

With this in mind, we should ask ourselves about the origin of the Natural Law itself, as opposed to the idea of Natural Law… in other words, where does this natural law come from?

Curiously enough, the questions of this type are quite ancient.  The Ancient Greeks believed in a pantheon of deities, but believed that the idea of what was right and what was wrong went beyond their pantheon.  Since to them, gods were finite (greater than man, but not infinite), we had the dilemma of Socrates to Euthyphro, where Socrates was enquiring about a man attempting to prosecute his father in a court of law, claiming it was the pious thing to do. Socrates’ dilemma was:

The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

The dilemma Socrates uses is we have to come to a decision: If a thing is pious because the gods love it, is this not arbitrary? Could they not change their minds?  And if the gods love it because it is pious, does this not mean there is something above the gods?

Some Christians unfortunately, try to answer this by saying that morality is good because God commands it, which opens them up to the charge of the atheist that such a God could change His mind and command evil… and indeed has done so when they point to the commands of the Old Testament.

The common explanation of atheists I have discussed this with or read is: since there is no god, morality comes from ourselves, either biologically or through society.

However, the elimination of the existence of God does not eliminate the dilemma of Socrates' question.  We simply replace "gods" with "man" or "society" and we have the same dilemma.  If morality is ingrained by society, then we have morals which can be changed by society.  If it is outside of us, what is it and why does it bind?

Is Morality From Society?

The problem with this view is, if morality is given to us by society, then those who support the status quo are good and those who oppose it are bad.  This would mean the rebel is a person of evil, and the person who doesn't make waves is good. This would make the Civil Rights movement in America wrong, and would make those opposition groups in Nazi Germany wrong as well.

Yet our experience is the opposite.  We recognize that often it is the person who speaks out against the practices of society that is considered moral.  At other times, a society fights to protect what it considers good against an immoral threat from leaders who act against this good.

Both examples demonstrate a view that morality is seen as being outside of society.

Is Morality From Biology?

The problem with this idea is that, if Morality is from biology, then things which promote life (such as self preservation) are good and things which harm it are bad.  Now this works in cases of society where the immoral act threatens the life of others.  However, it falls short in dealing with issues where the individual sacrifices himself in the name of what is right: That we are to prefer suffering to doing an act of evil.  Consider this example:

Two soldiers are captured and are told that one of them is to be killed.  One of them is told he will go free if he tortures the other man to death.  If he refuses, he will be tortured and killed instead.  Ought he to accept this offer?

Some systems of ethics might say this is a good thing to do, but most of us would consider the person who said "yes" to be a horrible person.  This demonstrates that morality is not the same as a biological instinct to protect the herd.  The soldier, if he accepts, does not harm society.  He protects himself at the cost of another, but if he does not he will die himself.

The Christian idea is that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil, and that the soldier would be doing evil to consent to the dilemma given.  We can see this in Matthew 10:28 which tells us:

^28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Because we believe in an immortal soul, we recognize that death is not the worst thing which can happen, and the repercussions of what we do have an effect on us which exists after death. Because of this, it is not permissible to do evil to spare one’s own life.

We also recognize that it is never permissible to be cowardly. If another person is in danger and I walk away because I do not want to risk harm, I am scorned and not considered moral. However showing the courage to do what ought to be done can put our lives at risk. Because of this, self preservation is not the origin of morality.

The Christian Moral Theology Shows the False Dilemma of Socrates

Neither the idea of Society nor the idea of Biology answers Socrates’ dilemma. However some may wonder how Christians avoid either saying there is something beyond God (if God loves a thing because it is good) or that God is arbitrary (if a thing is good because God loves it). So how does the Christian answer this question?

The error of Socrates was his assumption was an Either-Or error, which he believed was between absolute and opposing premises. What he failed to consider was: That the measure of good and evil was not an arbitrary decision, but the reflection of the nature of what God is.  If God is infinite and the fullness of goodness, then that which is good reflects the nature of God while that which is evil acts in opposition to the nature of God.

In this, we see that the Christian understanding of Natural Law claims it reflects the goodness of God, and says evil acts go against the goodness of God.

The Christian believes God exists, and as a result, believes there is an objective rule as to what is good or evil. Some societies may err through no fault of their own when they try to follow the natural law, while others display contempt for the natural law. How God judges will depend on what the individual or the society could have known, not what was impossible for them to know. We do believe that all people at least know the Natural Law even when they err or sin in following it, as St. Paul tells us in Romans 2:12ff:

^12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ^13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. ^14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ^15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them ^16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

I find this a good thing to remember in the face of those atheists who create a straw man argument that “morality did not come from Christianity.” (I understand Dawkins has made an argument along these lines). We don’t believe it came from Christianity, we believe it came from God, who made it known to the world through Natural Law and through the Jews and Christians by way of Revelation.

Therefore, when we consider Natural Law, it is hardly a quandary that the atheist may deny God exists and still tries to behave in a moral way, but we may challenge him to explain why morality is binding.

Conclusion

I believe this gives us a framework to use in understanding how God judges the nations – not based on the Torah for those who do not know it, but based on what they could know and had an obligation to do. However a nation which knows, for example, murder is evil and refuses to ask the question on whether the abortion of the unborn fetus is murder is in fact guilty of refusing to acknowledge good and evil. Why? Because all people are required to seek the truth, and the refusal to seek the truth makes one culpable.

With this framework in mind, we can move on, in Article II, to looking at some of the accusations made about the Bible and acts done within its pages. Because we believe there is objective truth about right and wrong, and that God exists and is good, we need to look at actions in the Bible through this view in order to understand what the Christians believe, rather than to assume that Christians accept actions from the perspectives atheists assume.

The refusal to do this and to insist on one’s own interpretation is to fall into the error of bigotry which GK Chesterton once described as follows:

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

So it would not be bigotry for the atheist to believe his position is correct. However, it would be bigotry for him to be unable to consider whether there are errors in his assumptions which led to his conclusions.

[Article II in this series will be on the actions of men in the Old Testament].

The Mob Turns on Richard Dawkins

Reports are coming in of a dispute on RichardDawkins.net.  The history seems to be Dawkins has written a note claiming his blog forum will be more tightly moderated in light of abusive comments.  Ironically, the tight moderation will be enacted sooner than the 30 days stated because of the vitriol he received in response to his policy.

Christian bloggers of course have been on the receiving end of such vitriol for some time.  Trolls, flames, personal attacks and all the rest have been directed us for quite awhile now.  Of course I don't take part in the Schadenfreude which seems to be going around some sites, which seems to be amused by this.  These people are often the ones making insults against Christians.  Personally I'd rather the Internet be filled with a good deal more civility regardless of the topic on a forum than to see Dawkins get what he deserves.

Dawkins says in his post:

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

I believe the answer to this is: Richard Dawkins rose to fame by appealing to the mob, and now the mob has turned on him.  In his books and public statements, he has made attacks on religion which do not appeal to the intellectuals, but the mob mentality, using rhetorical flourishes to sneak past arguments which aren't valid.

The mob tends to love displays of violence and mockery.  They were the ones who flocked to the arenas during the Roman Empire, they were the ones who took part in lynching individuals, they were the ones who eventually took over French Revolution, turning on the founders.

This is the danger in the appeal to the mob.  One can encourage it to support you, but one can never fully control it.  One generally has to keep upping the ante for satiating the mob, because they become jaded.

The New Atheism has gained its appeal through pandering to the mob.  The attacks we have seen from them are that Christians are "stupid" and "irrational" and call for actions to put Christians "in their place."  The mob liked this, because of those Christians who insist that there are limits to what is acceptable behavior… limits which are unpopular in a hedonistic culture.

For long periods of time, we have seen the foul language, the insults used against the Christians.  So long as it was directed against the Christians, such things were tolerated.

However, once the mob grew angry at Dawkins and his attempts to control his site, the situation changed.  It wasn't Christians saying "You shouldn't do this."  It was Dawkins saying it.  The mob merely took their hostility to the next group "restricting" them.

So now they turned on him, using the vitriol long used against Christians against him.  The preferences of the mob have shifted further than Dawkins wishes to go, but the mob must be sated.  So once Dawkins tried to stop the mob, he paid the price.

He writes:

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

However, he played a role in his own savaging.  By tolerating the vile attacks so long as it was directed against Christians, it becomes somewhat hypocritical for him to object when he falls out of favor and becomes the target.

Perhaps Dawkins will learn now that there is an objective standard for behavior, and that what is wrong to direct towards him is also wrong to direct against others… even Christians.

The Mob Turns on Richard Dawkins

Reports are coming in of a dispute on RichardDawkins.net.  The history seems to be Dawkins has written a note claiming his blog forum will be more tightly moderated in light of abusive comments.  Ironically, the tight moderation will be enacted sooner than the 30 days stated because of the vitriol he received in response to his policy.

Christian bloggers of course have been on the receiving end of such vitriol for some time.  Trolls, flames, personal attacks and all the rest have been directed us for quite awhile now.  Of course I don't take part in the Schadenfreude which seems to be going around some sites, which seems to be amused by this.  These people are often the ones making insults against Christians.  Personally I'd rather the Internet be filled with a good deal more civility regardless of the topic on a forum than to see Dawkins get what he deserves.

Dawkins says in his post:

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

I believe the answer to this is: Richard Dawkins rose to fame by appealing to the mob, and now the mob has turned on him.  In his books and public statements, he has made attacks on religion which do not appeal to the intellectuals, but the mob mentality, using rhetorical flourishes to sneak past arguments which aren't valid.

The mob tends to love displays of violence and mockery.  They were the ones who flocked to the arenas during the Roman Empire, they were the ones who took part in lynching individuals, they were the ones who eventually took over French Revolution, turning on the founders.

This is the danger in the appeal to the mob.  One can encourage it to support you, but one can never fully control it.  One generally has to keep upping the ante for satiating the mob, because they become jaded.

The New Atheism has gained its appeal through pandering to the mob.  The attacks we have seen from them are that Christians are "stupid" and "irrational" and call for actions to put Christians "in their place."  The mob liked this, because of those Christians who insist that there are limits to what is acceptable behavior… limits which are unpopular in a hedonistic culture.

For long periods of time, we have seen the foul language, the insults used against the Christians.  So long as it was directed against the Christians, such things were tolerated.

However, once the mob grew angry at Dawkins and his attempts to control his site, the situation changed.  It wasn't Christians saying "You shouldn't do this."  It was Dawkins saying it.  The mob merely took their hostility to the next group "restricting" them.

So now they turned on him, using the vitriol long used against Christians against him.  The preferences of the mob have shifted further than Dawkins wishes to go, but the mob must be sated.  So once Dawkins tried to stop the mob, he paid the price.

He writes:

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

However, he played a role in his own savaging.  By tolerating the vile attacks so long as it was directed against Christians, it becomes somewhat hypocritical for him to object when he falls out of favor and becomes the target.

Perhaps Dawkins will learn now that there is an objective standard for behavior, and that what is wrong to direct towards him is also wrong to direct against others… even Christians.

Credo and Clarifications: What I Believe About Scripture, Church and Evolution

In light of a recent post which gathered a good deal of attention, I thought I should deal with certain misconceptions over what I actually believe.  Since some atheists and some Christians seem to be under the impression I reject the authority of Scripture and of the Church.  Because of this I want to make a formal statement on this subject.

Do I Believe Scripture Contains Error?

Answer: No.  I believe Scripture is Inerrant.  My disputes are not over the words of Scripture.  Rather, my disputes are with those personal interpretations of Scripture which insist on being treated as Doctrine.  I do believe certain Christians misunderstand the idea of genre when it comes to reading Scripture and draw a meaning the Bible never intended to give.

I formally reject the idea the Bible is only symbolic or myth and repudiate any other view which claims Scripture contains error.

Do I Believe The Catholic Church Errs?

Answer: No.  I accept and submit to the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under the Successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, and do my best to keep to the teachings of the Church.

I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ and was given the authority to bind and to loose, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is given by Christ the authority to interpret Scripture

I do not go against the authoritative teaching of the Church and seek to constantly improve my understanding of her teachings to keep rooted in the Catholic faith.

That being said, I wish to also state that the Magisterium is living.  It does not contradict itself, but it can deepen the understanding of a teaching.  So we need to understand that the Current Successor of St. Peter has the authority to interpret the teachings of the Church in a binding way, but the Catholic in the pew does not.

This is why, when a radical traditionalist or a Young Earth Creationist Catholic cites an older council of the Church and accuses the the modern Magisterial teaching of contradiction, I accept the teaching of the Magisterium over the so-called interpretations of the individual.

What Do I Believe on Creationism, Evolution and the Teachings of the Church?

I believe that Genesis intended to affirm the truth that all creation is from God, and nothing exists which God did not will to bring into being.  However Scripture does not say how God chose to create the universe and all that which is in it.

Science appears to indicate the world is around 4 billion years of age.  I ground what I believe about the possibility of evolution in the teaching of Pope Pius XII who laid down the following requirements:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. (Humani Generis)

The Church has not ruled that one may not believe in evolution at all, but requires us to remember:

1. It hasn't been proven without a doubt and we are not to say it has been proven beyond a doubt
2. Those who consider evolution have to consider both arguments for and against it.
3. The Church has the authority of authentically interpreting the Scriptures
4. We are to always submit to the Church should it make a ruling.
5. We must believe the soul was directly created by God

Because the Catholic Church does not forbid a belief in evolution that accepts God as the cause of all which exists, those who claim Catholics that accept the possibility of evolution are heretics do not speak for the Church, but instead are guilty of rash judgment if they assume without proof that Catholics who believe in evolution deny the authority of the Church or the Bible.

Conclusion

I formally reject as false and unjust any accusation which claims I deny the authority of the Church or the inerrancy of Scripture.  I do submit to the Church with an act of will.  I will never disobey the Church and seek to avoid all instances of accidental departure from her teachings.