The God of the old testament is not immoral.

Richard Dawkins describes the God of the Old Testament with a bunch of very strong words. As a Christian Apologist, I have tried many times to avoid these objections but realize that it is not right of me to do so. In this debate, I will be responding to the major and some minor moral objections brought up by the New Atheists and their followers in order to show that belief in the God of the Old Testament is not the irrational, Immoral, Childish belief that Dr. Dawkins and his colleagues and followers make it out to be. Preamble So I want to start off by declaring that I will not be discussing the moral argument for the existence of God if anyone would like to then feel free to reach out to me. I also wish to make a proclamation. Even if God is immoral this does not disprove God nor does it disprove Christianity. Because of the limited space and the potential lack of awareness. I may not get to address all the objections but if one may like I will be all for continuing the discussion in the comments. Thank you, Dr. Richard S. Hess, For the info I will use. Dr. Hess is Earl S. Kalland Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary. He is also the editor of the Denver Journal, The Seminary"s online theological review journal, And the Bulletin for Biblical Research. Deuteronomy 13:6-16: This one was raised by Dr. Sam Harris a Philosopher and Cognitive Neuroscientist. This scripture deals with the apparent command to stone those who turn away from faith in God. First, The text uses a verb for "entice" (Hebrew root set) that explicitly refers to those who are successful in leading others to do something ( Judges 1:14), Often contrary to God"s will (as in Jezebel"s leadership of Ahab [1 Kings 21:25]). Second, The statements attributed to those condemned to die are commands (first person cohortatives), "We must worship other gods. " Third, The issue here is not one of personal belief, But explicitly one attempting to lead the community away from its ancestral faith. Fourth, All this ignores the ancient context of this legislation. Deuteronomy is presented as an ideal set of laws and punishments in an ideal theocracy where the nation follows God. This is not unique. The legal collection of Hammurabi, Hundreds of years earlier, Functioned in a similar manner. It was an ideal set of laws designed to demonstrate the justice and righteousness of the king. Despite thousands of Old Babylonian texts, Including court decisions, We have virtually no certain example in which this legal collection was appealed to in order to adjudicate a specific case. The same is virtually true of Deuteronomy. In fact, If we were to read the history of Israel in the Old Testament the picture is not that of a people fearfully observing this law lest they face death at the hands of their own family. The reality as presented is just the opposite. In every generation, Huge numbers of the people turn away from God with impunity. In fact, The era of Ahab and Jezebel is one of the few where their assassinations at the hands of Jehu are attributed in part to their sin. Yet even here the later prophet Hosea promises divine punishment on the dynasty of Jehu for the excessive brutality of Jehu"s massacre of the Baal worshipers (Hosea 1:4). Mercy triumphs over judgment, As it does so often in the Old Testament. Thus the most severe of commands may be set forth in one place, But God"s mercy enables Israel to accomplish what they could not or would not. At one point, In Deuteronomy 10:16, God commands Israel to circumcise their hearts. But later God promises that he will circumcise the hearts of the people (Deuteronomy 30:6). Yes, We can cherry-pick harsh texts in the Bible. However, In the larger context, The picture is different. God is characterized by mercy rather than judgment (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13; 12:7). Genesis 6"9: This one deals with the generation of Noah and the great flood. Dr. Richard Dawkins a British Scientist argues that God is "appalling" because God takes "a dim view of humans, " so he drowns them with their children and innocent animals. First according to the Bible God created all these people and thus holds an implicit right over their existence. Second, The rationale for the flood was the violence that filled the earth so that, With the exception of Noah, All the people devoted themselves to violence (Genesis 6:11-13). Unlike the comparable ancient Near Eastern flood account that Dawkins cites (Utnapishtim of the seventh-century b. C. Epic of Gilgamesh), The flood did not come because the gods were fed up with the noise of so many people (i. E. , A means of population control). Rather, The Bible ascribes a moral cause, Uncontrolled murder. This, Of course, Is the reason for the prohibition of murder immediately after the flood in Genesis 9:6. Third, In a text very conscious of chronology and sequence, It is important to note that Noah was five hundred years old (Genesis 5:32) at the point when the events leading up to the flood begin, And six hundred years old (Genesis 7:6) when the flood itself began. This would allow up to one hundred years during which Noah was building the ark and preparing for the flood. The story thus presents a century of mercy, During which everyone who cared to learn of the coming judgment, Symbolized by the ark that was under construction, Could learn of it from Noah. Unlike the Utnapishtim story, There was no command to keep this a secret. That no one, Aside from Noah"s family, Turned from their murderous violence (cf. Genesis 4:23-24) itself testifies to the wickedness of that generation and their wanton destruction of what God had created. Finally, God could not have ended that generation and its murderous inclinations without destroying it entirely. Note that the text never states that children were killed. This is not to deny that the picture evoked would have included whole families. Rather, It stresses the terrible consequences of murder and violence in the eyes of God. Neither the murders by Cain or Lamech ended in their own deaths. But this merciful act of God only led to greater and greater violence. Perhaps Dr. Dawkins has a better solution to end this growing cycle of bloodletting. The author of Genesis did not. That world ended and a new one was created, Beginning with the righteousness of Noah. Genesis and Judges 19: Once again we have Dr. Dawkins making an objection. The focus of Dawkins for Genesis seems to be that of Lot offering his daughters to the angry mob who wished to rape the "men" who had come to warn Lot and his family of the impending judgment against their hometown of Sodom. The focus in Judges is on the gang rape of the Levite"s concubine in Gibeon. Describing this as a "misogynistic ethos, " Dawkins manages both to ignore the purpose of these stories and to violate the basic canons of reading Hebrew narrative. First, The purpose of these stories is not to present the ideals of how women (or men) should be treated in ancient Israel. It is to describe the ultimate in the lack of hospitality in both Sodom and Gibeon. Common morality throughout the ancient world (and in Israel) demanded that anyone visiting a town should be shown courtesy and hospitality. The evil men of both of these towns were not lusty homosexuals but rather those who rejected this tenet of common morality and sought to degrade and abuse visitors. In both cases their utter violation of hospitality brought terrible judgment upon them, Their town and (for the incident of Judges 19) their tribe. This selfishness and lack of concern for the vulnerable lies behind Ezekiel 16:49, Which identifies Sodom"s sin as "they did not help the poor and needy. " Its main concern was not sexuality any more than these stories were intended as models on how to treat one"s daughters or other female family members. No text in the Bible presents Lot or the Levite as moral ideals. Rather, These texts describe corruption and degeneration on both sides. It is probably for this reason that those who constructed the order of the canon for the Christian Old Testament chose to put Ruth immediately after Judges. The scroll of Ruth describes a beautiful love story of faith in which a Moabitess freely takes on devotion to the God of Israel out of love for her mother-in-law, And through this act comes to fall in love with Boaz of Bethlehem. The presentation here is less about the role of women or men, And more about living in a world where love, Peace and family can still exist as values despite the presence of cruelty and violence. Due to limited space, I will not be able to cover all the objections and thus shall wait for another round and use the comment section for further discussion. God bless. Sources: https://biologos. Org/blogs/archive/apologetic-issues-in-the-old-testament-part-1