Next are some objections to the Bible coming from a retired psychologist and local atheist, Brian Bolton. His articles appearing in atheist journals are slightly more well thought out than most of the other objections we just discussed, and I will give Dr. Bolton credit for at least sticking to the source, the Bible, rather than merely objecting to abuses made over the years in the name of Christ. The following objections center around the dubious moral teachings in the Bible.
1. “The death penalty is required for anyone who steals from Yahweh (Joshua 7:1-26) or the Christian community (Acts 5:1-11).”
In fact, these were only two very specific occasions when the community of God needed to be set on the right path before they began expansion – right after the Jews entered the Holy Land and Achan stole some plundered items that were dedicated to God and soon after the Day of Pentacost when Ananias and Sapphira withheld some money they had gotten from the sale of property. There are three things wrong with this objection: (a) it falsely implies that people should carry out the death penalty rather than God himself, (b) the passage in Acts clearly states that Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied to God, not because they stole from him, (c) and lastly the common error of confusing description with prescription in historical texts of the Bible.
2. “Jesus did specifically endorse the death penalty for one crime, that of cursing parents (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10)”
In his encounter with the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus merely quotes back to them Old Testament commands to demonstrate how hypocritical their actions toward their parents are. He certainly doesn't go on and demand the death penalty for them, but he wants to remind them of how important respect for parents is treated by God. At most, it is implicit rather than explicit endorsement of the death penalty for that offense, which we have no evidence was ever really carried out in Israel on a regular basis for that offense.
In addition, we have the example in John 8 where Jesus is called upon to explicitly endorse the death penalty for another crime, adultery. He not only refuses to do so, but also is responsible for helping the guilty party escape without any punishment.
3. “In two separate statements (Romans 1:26-32; I Timothy 1:8-11), Paul affirmed the Mosaic decree that homosexuals...should be executed.”
a. The Romans passage proves just the opposite. It first states, “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (v. 27) “The due penalty for their error” has been much discussed and may refer to various medical problems resulting as the natural consequences of some homosexual acts.
b. “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up.” (v. 28) God didn't at all demand the immediate death penalty, but let them continue in their sin, storing up punishment for later on.
c. “They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die – yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.” (v. 32) This comment in its context refers not just to practicing homosexuals but to all who suppress the truth of God, and it includes a whole raft of sins such as gossiping and being insolent. We all deserve to die.
d. That is confirmed in the I Timothy passage, which lists many sinful practices but says nothing about the death penalty. Bolton makes the totally unwarranted assumption here and elsewhere in his writings that if Jesus doesn't specifically reject the death penalty for disobedience of certain certain OT laws that he quotes, then it means that Jesus approves of the penalties for those offenses also.
(“Does the Bible Require the Death Penalty?,” The American Rationalist, May/June 2015, pp. 2-6)
4. “And what did Jesus have to say about Jews? 'You are children of your father, the Devil.'” (John 8:44)
a. Jesus himself was a Jew as were his picked apostles.
b. In John's Gospel, the term “Jew” almost always specifically refers only to those Jews who rejected Jesus.
c. The reason that Jesus directed these harsh words to that particular audience is found in v. 37: “You look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word.”
5. From that same article, Bolton states, “(Jesus supports) right-wing economic ethics: 'To those who have little, even that will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12, 25:29, Mark 4:25, Luke 19:26).'”
a. Matthew 13:12 and Mark 4:25 are teachings about receiving spiritual truth with gladness or purposely shutting your ears to it.
b. Matthew 25:29 and Luke 19:26 are parables concerning not money, but how trustworthy we are in employing whatever gifts God has given us.
(Basic Bible Facts for Atheists, American Atheist, 1st Quarter, pp. 24-28 2016)
6. Here are the OT examples Bolton quotes in his article entitled sarcastically “Let's Use Biblical Execution Methods,” American Atheist, 2nd Quarter 2016, pp. 18-21:
a. “King Abimeleck burned alive 1,000 residents who had taken refuge in the tower of Shechem. (Judges 9:49).”
b. “King Manasseh sacrificed his son as a burnt offering on a heathen altar (2 Kings 21:6). King Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) sacrificed his son as well...”
c. “Two of King Xerxes' officers were impaled alive on poles because they had conspired to assassinate him (Esther 2:21-23)”
d. “Hazael suffocated King Ben Hadad (2 Kings 8:15).”
e. “Daniel's false accusers, along with their wives and children, were also ripped to shreds by lions (Daniel 6:24).”
f. “The Philistines cut off Saul's head after he killed himself, and they hung up his head in the temple of Dagon.”
Reciting the violent actions of apostates (the first two examples) and pagans (the following four examples) that happen to be mentioned in the Bible and blaming it on God is even more illogical than saying that God is evil because some of the people who claim to believe in him are evil.
In the same article he has a section entitled “Ripping Open Pregnant Women”: “Three (sic) uses of this grisly mode of killing indicate Yahweh's approval”
1. “Elisha prophesied that King Hazael [of Aram] would rip open pregnant Israelite women (2 Kings 8:12).” However, Elisha wept over the fact that it would happen.
2. “King Menahem of Israel ripped open all of the pregnant women of Tephsah with a sword (2 Kings 15:16).” Yes, but he was subsequently condemned in v. 18: “he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
3. “Yahweh promised that the pregnant women of Samaria would be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).” Prophesying that a pagan nation would do that to her as a natural consequence of her sin is not the same as God determining that it should happen or approving of the action.
4. “However, after the Ammonites ripped open the pregnant of Gilead with swords, Yahweh declared that he would destroy the Ammonites (Amos 1:13).” This should logically make one think twice before declaring that God approved of the first three occasions.
“And while he condemned interpersonal violence, even in self-defense, he hypocritically incorporated extreme violence into his five Matthean slave parables.”
(“Jesus: Prophet of Peace and Love or Purveyor of Fear and Hate?,” American Atheist, 4th Quarter 2017, pp. 16-21)
“Jesus' approval of slavery is readily apparent in his inclusion of servants and their masters in eight of his parables. Because he never criticized nor condemned slavery and he did not forbid people from owning slaves, he tacitly endorsed the practice. In one of these parables, he explicitly authorized the cruel master-slave relationship when he recommended whipping disobedient slaves.”
(“God is a Slave Owner's Best Friend and the Bible is the Instruction Manual,” American Atheist, 1st Quarter 2018, pp. 22-26)
In rebuttal are the following points:
1. Parables take familiar everyday situations and use them to make a spiritual point. The details of the parable are there mainly to add color to the story.
2. Parables are often not moral in the least and not intended to be so. For example, look at the parables of the unjust judge, the dishonest steward, and the man who bought a field for the hidden treasure in it.
3. Also, parables, as made-up stories, often contain hyperbolic situations. For example, masters loaning “slaves” huge amounts of money or personally carrying out a death penalty which probably would not have been allowed under current law at the time.
4. Bolton purposely blurs the categories of slave, servant, and steward in this criticism.
5. The argument from silence is always a weak one and could easily be used to prove that Jesus endorsed any typical practice in the Roman Empire at the time that he didn't specifically condemn.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments