Rethinking the God of the Bible by David Lee

[David Lee]

Rethinking the God of the Bible
by David Lee




Evolutionary biologist and staunch atheist, Richard Dawkins in his New York best seller “The God Delusion” states that: “the God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist...capriciously malevolent bully” (50). Dawkins also notes that “Thomas Jefferson- better read- was of a similar opinion, describing the God of Moses as ‘a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust (50). Could such a clear description be an accurate depiction of the god of the bible who many call the god of love, grace and redemption? One of the many problems with such a rash assumption is that it not only assumes that the god spoken of in the bible is fictitious, but it is also usually assumed that the person making such claims is accurately interpreting the ancient text. It might be time that the religious and non-religious put down their dogmatic conclusions about god and the bible so that all involved might be able to re-evaluate the assumed “facts” that make some speak with such unwarranted confidence.

Most of the time critics of the Bible, although maybe having read it, have never researched its contents, context and literary style as compared to ancient rabbinic literature. Granted, Christians are also guilty of the same crime. While making zealous claims about the bible and acting on them, they, at the same time can be completely ignorant of the contents and meaning of the bible. Typically leaning on unfounded and elementary statements such as “Jesus loves me this I know, because the Bible tells me so”- the irony being that the bibles fails to mention anyone in the 21st century by name and even if it did, most advocates of such a popular idea would not know it because of the very fact mentioned above- an unfamiliarity with the Bible.

Being that both believers in Jesus as well as non-believers both typically only think that they know what the Bible “says”, it is no wonder that Dawkins, and others make such claims against the god of the Bible without much worthy response. It is about time that, those who are interested in expressing their opinion on matters like: the god of the bible’s character, systematic theology and so on, be held accountable to whether or not they are familiar with hermeneutics (the art of interpretation) and if that particular method was one used during the writing of the original text in question. It is also crucial that most understand the fact that the bible is a collection of 66+ books which differ greatly in areas of genre. For example, the Gospels can be seen as historical narratives and yet they also contain within them: parabolic language, hyperbole, idioms and other forms of figurative language.

The question remains for all involved: could someone be interpreting the bible incorrectly, most importantly could that someone be you? All one needs to do is take a peek at history and all the atrocities that have been committed because of an erroneous view of the bible to find that the answer is, unequivocally-yes. Speaking of Christians, John Shelby Sponge, in his book- Jesus for the Non-Religious, states “ …we became so certain that we possessed [Jesus] that we persecuted Jews, excommunicate doubters, burned heretics, and used violence and war to achieve conversion…we watched [Christ] followers distorting people with guilt, fear, bigotry, intolerance, and anger…we noticed that many who called [Jesus] Lord, and who read their bibles regularly also practice[d] slavery, defend[ed] segregation, approved lynching, abused children, diminish[ed] woman and hated homosexuals… .” The list goes on and it is no surprise that Dawkins and others come to the conclusion that the god of such people is cruel to say the least. Now, some may say that Sponge’s quote is nothing more than an example of human hypocrisy, but I must disagree. Hypocrisy is when you say and believe one thing while knowingly doing the exact opposite. The problem with calling most of these acts hypocritical is the key fact that the crimes listed were committed by people who were taught and believed that the bible not only condoned such acts but also commanded them. Hence, the problem is not hypocrisy or an evil, fictitious god; the problem is people having a passion to act on what they think the bible says, and yet not disciplined enough to make certain that it really says it. Learning to be open minded (and brave) enough to re-evaluate one’s interpretation of a text and oppose false dogma by becoming educated in the many different literary styles that existed during the original author’s era is a daunting task, but without doing so, we have permitted, what I would refer to as a hermeneutical crisis, to occur.

Imagine a common phrase such as “what’s the matter, a cat got your tongue?” being written on a scroll, buried in the ground, dug up 2,000 years later and with no knowledge of 21st century literature being interpreted as a literal feline hanging from the tip off a humans tongue, thus preventing them from speaking. Foolish you say? This is precisely what most people do with the bible. In the book of Revelation, for example, a beast is mentioned “rising out of the sea” having complete authority of the world. This text is usually interpreted as a literal demon-like beast coming out of the literal ocean and having total control of the planet earth. However, in the Jewish mind the sea represented the Gentile nations, “to rise” was to come to power, “the world” was typically a reference to only the Roman empire and its surrounding areas, and since the word beast was used by the average 1st century Jew to describe a gentile- the text is simply relaying the fact that a gentile (or non Jewish) leader was about to rise to power and have control over the Roman Empire, not the literal planet earth. Answers are plentiful and simple. Weather it is the popularized and exploited mark of the beast (666) or the character of God, a little research on what is meant goes a long way.

The question remains, can such familiar stories like Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, and David and Goliath be so easily twisted to mean something entirely different than the authors original intent? Yes, and all it takes is one preconceived idea to give birth to an offspring of misrepresentation. To illustrate this point, I will have to borrow my friend’s lengthy but worthy illustration, using one of the most famous and familiar stories in America: The Wizard of Oz.

Kevin Beck, in his book “This Book Will Change Your Life” points out that with an altered perception, the beautiful and magical story of Dorothy can be turned into “a horror story show under the threat of boycott from religious activist’s organizations (12). Beck’s retelling of the story goes like this: “Dorothy was an impetuous child; she disrespected her elders, visited a strange man in a wagon, and trained her dog to attack an old lady. As a result, God sent a tornado to punish her. The whirlwind swept her away to a bizarre world where she killed two of the residents and celebrated their deaths with freakish elves and demonic soldiers. In this realm Dorothy cavorted with witches, weird talking beasts, and evil flying monkeys….” (12) So far, on top of writing about the god of the bible, it seems as though Richard Dawkins might also have a reason to write another book on how evil and cruel little Dorothy is, not to mention how the book Wizard of Oz is a bad influence on children. Beck goes on, in his “retelling of the Wizard of Oz” to explain that not only does Dorothy steal a priceless pair of ruby slippers but also seduces a human-like scarecrow, a metallic lumber jack, and a beastly lion into accompanying her to a bejeweled city in order to meet a wizard who might help her get home. She agrees to steal someone’s broom and in the act even murders its rightful owner (12). His retelling goes on, but I am sure the reader gets the point: “these are the same facts but told with a different tone, an unusual emphasis and some suggestive wording (12) and this example is perfect for illustrated what I believe is what happens when most people “read” the bible. It is either a happy, glorious story suitable for children or they find it, and its god repulsive, evil, and cruel- same stories, different perception.

I agree with Beck that “the way we read the bible informs everything from our view of God to our understanding of ourselves and our place in our culture and our world regardless of whether we are fundamentalists, atheists, evangelicals, or of any (or no) religious persuasion” (9); or as someone else put it “whether you believe this or not is irrelevant, considering the fact that millions of other people do” (unknown author)

Although, admitting that one’s religious conclusions involving God and other sacred and dear topics might be inaccurate, is a humbling and fearful thing to do, in the long run I believe that doing so will bring humanity closer together and silence the rash, but understandable, ridicule from individuals like Richard Dawkins. The reality is this: the bible and the god that is attempted to be described within its pages have been and will continue to be influenced by a reader’s preconceived ideas, cultural upbringing, worldview as well as numerous other variables. In order to help prevent the misinterpretation of such an influential collection of writings the readers must stop and ask, “How do I really know that this text means what I think it means?” As already illustrated, the meaning of a story as well as one’s character can be drastically altered at the blink of an eye. Granted, Dawkins might be correct in asserting that “the god of the Old Testament is…unpleasant” (50), but then again, depending one’s perception of a story so could Dorothy and her little dog too.










Works Cited
Beck, Kevin A. This Book Will Change Your World: How All Things Become New. Colorado Springs: Bimillennial Press, 2009.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
Spong, John Shelby. Jesus for the Non Religious. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.

[sam]

I don't think Dawkins has anything to offer at all.

[Chuck]

Jason wrote: "John Lennox made mince meat of Dawkins justification for morals."

Jason, I just finished watching "Collision". Have you seen it yet? I wondered if the arguments Wilson used are the same employed by Lennox? Since "Collision" wasn't a contiguous story, it was at times difficult to follow the arguments through...so I'm not certain an adequate comparison could even be made.

David, I appreciate honest inquiry and introspection. Curtis good thoughtful responses. I hope David has an opportunity to fill in the gaps. I've never heard a Dawkins' interview that I found was particularly compelling. Hitchens on the hand is a far better and more decent spokesman. I think he met his match in Wilson.

[Curtis Sibbit]

David,

I will get to my disagreements with your post below but first a comment or two.  I’m looking for the meat here.  I think (if I get you right) your saying, Christians have been bad in the past so play nice.  Try not to believe your really right.  Admit Dawkins and Spong have good arguments against Christianity.

Maybe we should do some form of academic affirmative action in reparation for what other people have done in the past, you know just pretend their arguments are good to make them feel better.  Seriously though, how do you tell a Dawkins or a Spong their points are third rate at best, logically unsound, and well…..as Jason put it foolish.  How do you tell them these things without being offensive.  God’s truth is offensive to those who deny Him.

“…re-evaluate the assumed “facts” that make some speak with such unwarranted confidence.  It is about time that, those who are interested in expressing their opinion on matters ….., be held accountable…”   Those whom I’ve read and watched debate these men publicly, men of good reputation, their confidence is warranted and they are held accountable.  Even so, they don’t speak for God and any error they would make doesn’t damage the case for Him.  To hold one accountable you must confront them publicly or privately.  You have done neither here.  Anyone is free to rightly assume you are speaking to someone else as you have named no one here.  I will ask you later to be accountable for your opinion by defending it.

“…both typically only think that they know what the Bible “says”, it is no wonder that Dawkins, and others make such claims against the god of the Bible without much worthy response.”  For accountability’s sake please give some examples of notable unworthy responses.  I’m not interested in what the person on nowhere blog said.  I can’t account for everyone nor do I want to.  At least pick a response from this site as this is where you chose to post.  Also, the “both” you were talking about includes the non-believer.  Shouldn’t you hold them accountable as well, or only the Christian could be that someone misinterpreting the Bible as you imply in a quote below.  Do you think you know what the Bible says?

“some may say that Sponge’s quote is nothing more than an example of human hypocrisy,”  I seldom hear those actions referenced as hypocrisy.  Usually I hear the opponent point out the straw man fallacy and this is Dawkins' and Spong’s error.  Christ and the teaching of scripture can never be held responsible for what people do unless they are accurately following Him and it.  Spong for sure would admit this if for nothing more than his personal benefit.  If Christianity is what he says people think and do (hate homosexuals) then he’s out.  He must admit Christ is not responsible for that (hatred) or why would he still want to be a considered a Christian.

“The question remains for all involved: could someone be interpreting the bible incorrectly, most importantly could that someone be you?  All one needs to do is take a peek at history and all the atrocities that have been committed because of an erroneous view of the bible to find that the answer is, unequivocally-yes.”  Maybe you didn’t mean that, this way but here is what you said.  I (and you are by implication) could be misinterpreting the bible because, a peek at history shows that people have done bad things and they did these bad things because they had an erroneous view of the Bible.  Also, the question is for all involved so….maybe no one interprets the Bible correctly.  You can bet Dawkins thinks he has it right, but if atheists in the past have done bad things due to an erroneous view of the Bible then by your logic Dawkins may be wrong as well.  Yes of course I could be wrong but the evidence for that isn’t that others have been wrong before.  Oh yes and…so what?  Why should I care about what could be.  There could be green men with pink toes on Pluto.

“The question remains, can such familiar stories like Adam and Eve, ……….be so easily twisted to mean something entirely different than the authors original intent?”  Again, of course but….so what?  Anyone (including atheists) can twist them and do bad things.  The question is, have they, who has done it, and how to fix it.  Like you said before, accountability.

“Although, admitting that one’s religious conclusions involving God and other sacred and dear topics might be inaccurate, is a humbling and fearful thing to do, in the long run I believe that doing so will bring humanity closer together and silence the rash, but understandable, ridicule from individuals like Richard Dawkins.”  And that sounds like a very wonderful thing to do, for a humanist.  I thought we wanted to bring humanity closer to God.  I for one have been humbled a lot in my biblical understanding, not by admitting that I “might be inaccurate” but finding out that I was, through searching for the truth.  Also, why would I want to silence Dawkins, these new atheists are showing the world how foolish atheism is.  After all, these guys are the best they’ve got, right?

The reality is this: the bible and the god that is attempted to be described within its pages have been and will continue to be influenced by a reader’s preconceived ideas, cultural upbringing, worldview as well as numerous other variables.”  Surely you didn’t mean that.  The Bible attempts to describe God?  The Bible and God will be influenced by readers, culture, and other variables.  If you meant the reader will continue to be influenced by their preconceived notions about the God that is described in the Bible, that I get, and I’m sorry for making the worst interpretation.

readers must stop and ask, “How do I really know that this text means what I think it means?”  Yes… and…. this includes the atheist, and on what basis can he make that determination"?  Relativism? Empiricism? Induction?  No!  Not even a proper hermeneutic will help the unregenerate interpret spiritual things properly.  They hate this God they claim doesn’t exist.  How could they get his logos right?

“It would be wise not to bring up morals when talking to an atheist, unless you want to be humiliated with the fact that "Christian morals" as I listed above in the article, have, over the years either been twisted, reinterpreted or simply exploited to impose immorality if anything. In a nut shell, we have a horrible record and we still do not know what to do with the Hebrew Bible.”  First, I’m interested in what you found compelling in Dawkins’ argument as well.  Surely you’ll be accountable to support a claim that we would be “humiliated” by such an argument.  Secondly, and again, Christian (biblical) morals that are twisted, reinterpreted or exploited to impose immorality are by definition Not Christian Morals!  So, again an accounting of bad people doing bad things is a straw man, substituting peoples actions for moral principals.  This is always the atheist’s tactic, its always wrong, it never works, and it makes my job easy.  I got a hi skewl deploma, Dawkins has a PHD, as many of these “new atheists” have, they need a new dog or pony.

Finally, combating the new atheists (any of them) requires no knowledge of scripture at all!  Their propositions fall apart on their own irrationalities.  All one needs to do is point them out.  I would be mad too if I had worked my whole life to come up with this stuff and a teenager could refute it, but I can’t help that their shrill.  I do try to be gentle with them but their “selfish gene” just gets the better of them.  As for Spong, if it talks like an atheist, and looks like one, then his arguments probably come from the same place with the same merits.  Sorry so direct.  Sorry so long.

[Jason Bradfield]

sophisticated atheist = sophisticated fool

No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the Lord.

[Jason Bradfield]

John Lennox made mince meat of Dawkins justification for morals.

[Jason Bradfield]

While on the one hand i can agree that many are loose (left behinders) and it makes the church look like a joke at times, i would not agree that cleaning all that up is necessarily going to silence people like Richard Dawkins.

No matter how you want to slice it, the bottom line is this - the claims of Scripture simply will not jive with Dawkins' empiricist beginnings.

Why did people reject Jesus? Here was God incarnate, preaching directly to them! PERFECT sermons, backed by a PERFECT life. Some of them witnessing miracles first hand. No one had any excuse. Yet, many walked away.

When i first became a preterist, i couldn't wait to meet my first atheist who would try to excuse his nonbelief on the fact that Jesus failed to return when he said he would. I met one in Ybor city one Sat. night. When i explained that his interpretation was just as wrong as the Lahayes of the world, and i gave him a "biblical" answer on how Mt 24 was fulfilled, he literally become enraged - face turning blood red. He started cursing me and said that i was twisting the text to cover the fact that Jesus lied and was a false prophet.

You lose atheist just four words into the Bible....in the beginning God.

In fact, you lose them the second you pull out a "bible" and call it a "revelation from God."

Again, i can agree that much exegesis we see is baloney and needs to be confronted, but we also need to be careful that we don't go to the other extreme of watering down the bible to tickle the atheist's ears....including, trying to accommodate science with the claims of the Bible.

Dawkins isn't looking for solid exegesis. Dawkins is looking for people to chunk their bibles into the trash can.

[Michael Bennett]

I am pretty familiar with Dawkins - might I ask - what is his argument that you find so convincing regarding morality. You didnt state it. Do you believe the Bible when it says the man that says that their is no God is a fool and Romans 1 etc on the subject? Thanks for your thought David

[David Lee]

Yeah, I would have to disagree with you on that one, Mike. Have you read Dawkins' "The God Delusion?".... in chapter 6 he discusses the accusation that "[atheists have no basis for right and wrong without [God]" and he does, in my opinion a commendable job refuting it.

I used to think that the argument was a strong one: "That atheists don't have a moral standard to go off of" but after much research I found that although it might stop the average Joe atheist in his tracks, the more sophisticate atheist handled the question with ease. I now realize that, what I thought to be a strong argument is not so strong after all.

I think it is easy for Christians to become slightly arrogant when bringing this "apology" to the table. If I am not mistaken, for not having a standard of morals for the few thousand years, true atheists (not those by default) have caused less wars, killed less people in the name of their ideology, and suppressed less people than those who supposedly have the truth and act in the name of god and his moral decree. It would be wise not to bring up morals when talking to an atheist, unless you want to be humiliated with the fact that "Christian morals" as I listed above in the article, have, over the years either been twisted, reinterpreted or simply exploited to impose immorality if anything. In a nut shell, we have a horrible record and we still do not know what to do with the Hebrew Bible. (Granted Preterism solves many of the issues pertaining to the Old Cov....etc)

Thanks for the response!!

[Michael Bennett]

Atheists have a much bigger problem than a believers "evil" God.

They have no basis for right or wrong without Him.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL - GREG BAHNSEN
http://www.salemreformed.org/pages/articles/bahnsen-articles/problem-of-evil.php