The immorality of the Biblical god
In my blog Why I'm an Atheist I wrote the following;
"It seemed to me that there were a number of objectionable actions, not only allowed by God, but explicitly commanded by this God."
In a more recent blog titled Is the Bible inerrant? If not then what? my claim gets a bit bolder;
"This god- is in my opinion- an immoral and sadistic figure and therefore not worthy of my attention or the attention of any moral person. To defend such actions and commands is to defend evil."
This is the topic of this blog- a justification for my assertion that the god outlined in the Bible is an immoral actor.
First, I want to clarify an objection I heard to the latter quote. The reason I'm writing this- the reason I've written any of these blogs and will continue to do so, is not to give "attention" to this god- but rather to challenge the people who believe in him. I'm writing to criticize and present opposition to popular beliefs that present a danger to the minds of people. In this way- if I am giving attention to anything- it's to the believers of these reprehensible ideas- not to the fictional characters incorporated within them.
Additionally, this quote is not a call to defend the god- but for the believer in the god to defend themselves and their immoral beliefs. I wouldn't ask someone to defend the actions of the Joker or Darth Vader because I don't think they exist. However if they were to subscribe to a belief that the dark side of the force was moral, I'd certainly challenge their beliefs and morality by using examples of immoral actions by Darth Vader, Darth Plagueis and other prominent dark side users in Star Wars cannon. In the same way, I call on believers in Christianity to defend their morality- using their proclaimed arbiter of their moral code as an example.
Now that I think that is clear- I'm going to present a case that the biblical god is immoral. I will delve into some of the common egregious commands and endorsements of this God. All of which will come out of the Old Testament because this is where this god gave us the most clear picture of what he wanted for his people (namely the only time he actually wrote laws). If you believe that this god changed between the Old and New Testament then I'd implore you to read Numbers 23:19, or Malachi 3:6 and if you accept the trinitarian position, then I'd point to Hebrews 13:8 as well. I'm not going to waste anymore time on reconciling the god of the Old Testament with the god of the New or the god of today.
That said I'm going to break up the issues I have into three categories; infanticide and genocide, slavery, and treatment of women. I think these are the core issues I have with the god described in the Bible though this is not an exhaustive list. I'm simply going to pick out the most egregious things- the low hanging fruit if you will.
Infanticide and Genocide:
In the Bible there are a few passages where god explicitly commands the slaughter of entire populations- but in reality it likely happened more frequently then recorded. If we start by discussing Deuteronomy 20:16-18 we will see this god's command to destroy everything that lives and breathes in a few specific nations. At the time this supposedly took place, the Israelites had just left Egypt and were establishing a nation of their own. This was a command from god to completely decimate these people because this god had promised their land to his people. Worth noting- though in an earlier verse (verse 10-14) there are options for peace, for the nations mentioned in verse 16, no peace is allowed because as per verse 18, anyone left alive may convince you to follow another god.
We need to remember this passage speaks specifically of killing anything that breathes- in contrast to the previous verses where it was acceptable to allow women and children to live (though they were to be your slaves if you let them live, verse 13 and 14). This obviously means the death of women and children, and likely livestock as well- with no opportunity of peace.
Is this not the very definition of genocide? Killing an entire population because of their opposing religious beliefs? Perhaps you may object to it being described as genocide because you use a different term- but infanticide? It irrefutably fits that definition. Is this an action we believe a god should endorse? One that is claimed to be omnibenevolent in many cases? The one who is believed to be the author of morality?
I would certainly think not. In case anyone thinks this is a one off instance of this god making such an insidious declaration- I point you to 1 Samuel 15:3. For context, in 1 Samuel, at the time, the people are not at war with the Amalakites. In fact, Saul had no reason to attack them until Samuel came to him and told him that their god wanted him to because of the way the Amalakites treated the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt (nearly 300 years prior). This is a clear example of unjustified killing of a group of people- unless you believe that it is justified to kill someone for the actions of their relatives from nearly 10 generations ago? I think not- even the Bible tells you not to in Ezekiel 18:20 that the sins of the father will not be passed onto the son. A similar example can be found in Deuteronomy 24:16. The passage in Ezekiel has God speaking to a hypothetical situation- where he even says he won't hold the wickedness against a person who turns away from their wickedness and does right by the Lord. In the passage in Deuteronomy God claims that each person (father and son) will die for their own sins and not sins of the other- yet in 1 Samuel, the only grievance cited by this god is one from about 300 years prior with no reason to believe that any new sin had influenced this decision.
For me this is a clear example of the crime not justifying such a heavy punishment. It isn't so much that I think these people are innocent or that I'm saying that this god, if he exists, can't judge these people however he deems fit- but that if he is going to give a justification- it should be sufficient and not antithetical to another command- to not hold people accountable for the sins of their ancestors.
An objection may come about to the effect that his declaration in Ezekiel or Deuteronomy doesn't apply to him, but only to people- but I reject this as it is my understanding that the commands this god gives out are to make people more like his holy nature and not some arbitrary declaration. If the goal is for him to bring people closer to him by giving them commands to follow that are in line with his nature- this cannot be a double standard.
Another objection I may anticipate is that this was a one off command. God no longer commands people to do these things- it was a special case. In this instance, you are correct, but the objection doesn't eliminate the immoral nature this command reveals in this god. This one off command, as I've already adequately explained, doesn't have sufficient justification- which is what makes it immoral. It isn't immoral because I believe this god is commanding infanticide today, but because he did at one time, revealing his character to us. As I already pointed out through Numbers 23:19 and Malachi 3:6, this god doesn't change his character- so if he thought it was acceptable to demand his people kill babies for the sins of people almost 10 generations prior, you have to believe it is consistent with his character today.
I believe, this is the strongest case there is to be made for the immoral behavior of this being. It leaves the least to the subjective moral opinion of the reader and is directly contradicted by other commands by the same god. The beauty of this situation is that it isn't my morality vs God's morality- because this God directly opposes his own choice in his command in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. I don't think a case can be made for a consistent god and consistent/reliable scripture here. If this god didn't change his mind, and the Bible is reliably true, then God directly contradicts his own morality in 1 Samuel.
Slavery:
When we get into the slavery aspects of the Old Testament- we often see people saying things like, "It wasn't slavery, it was indentured servitude" or "it wasn't racial slavery so you can't compare it to the United States" etc. I am going to address all of these objections so try to hold your objections till the end of this section.
First let's discuss what it is about slavery that makes it bad in the first place. I think it is fairly intuitive to say that slavery is bad- but why do we think this is the case? I posit that it is for a variety of reasons, almost all deriving from the concept of human dignity. It may be useful to determine what it is I mean when I say "slavery" at this point because I recognize that many people have used the term in a variety of ways over the years. When I discuss slavery, I'm specifically referring to the ownership of a person as if they are property or livestock.
Human dignity is defended in a number of ways- even having people like Frederick Douglass making the argument in 19th century America. His argument was that slavery was ungodly because humans are God's anointed creation and treating them like beasts is ungodly. This is, in some ways, an appeal to human dignity (even if the justification is that this dignity is bestowed by God). When we refer to human dignity we are referring to some explicit respect for all of humankind. This idea in the church seems to be grounded in a the theology that all men are created in the image of God and are therefore intrinsically valuable- more so than animals, tools or property. If we accept this- we have a theological reason to reject slavery- which by definition treats men/women as property or tools. In philosophical terms, we discuss this as treating people like a means to an end instead of as ends in themselves.
In our everyday lives we all presuppose some intrinsic value on ourselves, and extend that value to those we interact with simply because they belong to our "tribe" or "group". The group that we recognize their belonging to is "humankind". In this way, we recognize that they, like us, have their own independent values and desires. The pursuit of what we desire and our attribution of value to the pursuit and to the desired object, is what entails that we value our liberty. In order to value the pursuit and the object we have to believe we should be allowed to pursue it. This is a type of liberty that the founding father's of the United States wrote about in the Declaration of Independence, when they proposed the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This idea- the idea of liberty and our inclination to value it is why many of us intuitively see the moral evil in slavery.
I'd like to add here that I think there are a great many arguments against the ownership and exploitation of people from a variety of different ethical standings, however this requires me to presuppose that one of these ethical positions is convincing to you. Recognizing that this isn't necessarily the case, I will digress from further argumentation against slavery as I think at this point- it is unlikely that anyone will attempt to argue that slavery is ethical- at least not as defined here.
Now I will turn my attention to what the slavery of the Old Testament was like. Many well versed Christians will repeat the typical talking points about the year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:54) or something about how the slavery of the Old Testament was only indentured servitude (Leviticus 25:39-40). Both of these common arguments are irrelevant because they both refer to a form and function of slavery that is distinctly different from Leviticus 25:44-46.
In Leviticus 25:39-43 we see this god establishing a form of debt reconciliation for Israelites- if they are unable to make a living, they can sell themselves to a person- but only for a time- and they must be given their freedom and lands in the year of Jubilee. God makes the point at the beginning to distinguish this indentured servitude from slavery in verse 39 when he says about the Israelites, "do not make them work as slaves." He then goes on to establish what slaves are in verse 44-46.
Everything in Leviticus 25:39-43 is contrasting with the following verses in 44-46. When we see God saying, "do not rule over them ruthlessly" in verse 43, he is contrasting that with the ruthless way you may rule over your slaves. We see this evident in verse 46 when he says, referring to slaves, "You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Again- returning to the topic of Israelites- do not rule over them ruthlessly, to distinguish how they are different from the slaves you buy from the nations around you (verse 44).
Perhaps you don't think that's what this verse meant. Perhaps you want to argue that it isn't obvious from the literary devices used in the original text that this is comparing and contrasting two kinds of slavery- one that is ruthless and one that is not. If that were the objection I would point to Exodus 21:20-21. In this verse we see them discussing slaves, again- but this time discussing the punishment for beating the slave. According to the verses here, if the slave is beat with a rod and dies, the master will be punished- however if the slave is able to get up after a few days of being beat with a rod then the master is not punished- because the slave is their "property". Again- we see that this god is allowing people to treat others as less than human- as property.
Some may argue back that later in Exodus 21:26-27 it states that if you destroy a slaves eye or tooth, you have to let them go free- as if this is some kind of redemption for the allowance of using a rod to beat them. Sure- you punish them for some injuries, but for others, like being beaten with a rod in places that aren't on the face, it seems perfectly fine. This seems abhorrent to me- not only for the reason I mentioned above regarding liberty and the value of it but also because the treatment of any class of people as less than others seems abhorrent to me. This is what we are seeing here as there are punishments for nearly any other act of physical aggression against an Israelite, but if you beat your slave (bought from the foreigners) you're to go without punishment.
This is precisely what was wrong with the slavery in the United States- an entire class of people being treated as if they are less than human- treated like property that could be bought, sold, beat, etc. This is an inexcusable allowance from a god who is supposed to be omnibenevolent, or at least "loving".
There is one other objection that I will take on here in regards to Old Testament slavery before moving on to the inexcusable treatment of women- the objection that God didn't endorse slavery he only regulated it because he knew they would hold slaves regardless. To this- I would say- (as Alex O'Connor has repeatedly said) the only moral regulation on slavery, is its abolition. That said, could he not have said, "Do not rule over foreign slaves ruthlessly"? Could he not have punished the slave owner for beating their slave, regardless of the outcome? This god can demand you don't wear two fabrics interwoven (Deuteronomy 22:11), but he can't demand you don't hold slaves? He detests a man who wears women's clothes or a woman who wears men's clothes (Deuteronomy 22: 5) but he doesn't detest slavery?
The more I read about the mosaic law, I can't help but be further disgusted by this god. He outlaws several ridiculous things (two of which I previously mentioned) but allows one of the most egregious violations of human dignity that our species has ever seen. This to me is inexcusable on it's own. Ignoring the issues I have with genocide, or specifically infanticide, this alone is enough for me to reject the goodness of this god.
Treatment of Women:
Perhaps I'm just a product of 20th century feminism, but I am of the opinion that men and women should be treated with equal rights and respect. For instance, I think a woman shouldn't be required to marry a man that she doesn't want to or be sold into slavery by her parents. I think either of these practices would be unacceptable. It would appear as though the biblical god disagrees with me on this.
Let's start with the issue of a woman being sold into slavery by her parents. This was allowed to happen in the Old Testament because a woman was considered the property of her father. You don't have to take my word for it though- because if you read the whole context of the verses I quoted on slavery you already know where I'm going with this. Exodus 21:7-11 is all about the regulations around Israelite men selling their daughters as slaves. An important note, they aren't to do the work of slaves. Verses 9 and 10 make it clear that what they mean by this is "marriage". Verse 10 specifically mentions that if this man buys another man's daughter as a "slave" she will not be deprived of her "marital rights" if he takes another wife- implying that this "slave" is his wife. If this is the case- if I'm reading this correctly, then we have a shocking view of what marriage was to these people and what it is to their god.
As a married man, I find it repugnant to view your "wife" as a slave. The very idea that you can buy a woman from her father is bad enough- completely ignoring the autonomy of the woman- but to sell her as a "slave" that has some "marital rights" seems to be even worse. Giving a slave rights is not a bad thing- ideally they would have all the rights of everyone else and therefore wouldn't be a slave at all! However if this woman had all the rights of a man, she would have some choice in whether or not she was sold at all- which of course she does not.
The point being- if she is a slave or a mail order bride- it is still a horrific practice to allow women to be bought and sold by men. Regardless of how they are treated, taking away a person's autonomy based on their sex is sexist. This is exactly what this god is endorsing by setting this practice up in the first place. But I digress- let's move on to some other abominable marriage laws where women's rights are violated.
Notably I've talked about this exact topic as being part of my de-conversion in my blog, Why I'm an Atheist. In this blog I specifically call out Deuteronomy 22:13-21. I'm not going to go into a ton of detail here- but in case you didn't read and are not going to read that blog, I'll give a quick recap of my issues with these verses.
In these verses, the Bible outlines what happens when a man marries a woman whom he later suspects is not a virgin. The only test for virginity mentioned here is bringing the sheet from their marriage bed to the elders- presumably to either show blood (evidence of a torn hymen) or a clean sheet (evidence of a hymen tearing prior). Of course, this is not a very accurate way to measure someone's virginity as not all women tear their hymen the first time, not all women are born with hymens intact in the first place, etc. Even still, if this woman is not a virgin, this passage requires you to stone her on her father's doorstep- an extreme punishment for someone being married not a virgin if you ask me. Further, this is a clear double standard as there is no punishment or test for a man's virginity.
Of course, if it is shown that she is a virgin, she has to remain married to this man. Keeping in mind that an accusation like this would typically result in her death- so she has to remain married to a man who tried to have her killed. This seems like a strange and unusual punishment for someone who has done nothing wrong in this situation.
If you read further down, in verse 28-29 we see a woman being condemned to marry her rapist if she is raped before she is betrothed to a man. It seems to me that unless the translation is wrong (notably all popular translations refer to this as nonconsensual sex.) This seems preposterous to me that a woman would be required to marry the man who raped her. Why do we think this is okay? I think most of us intuitively don't think it's okay and yet- if someone is to be a Christian- following the Bible and it's teachings- they have to accept that this was- at least- acceptable at some time.
The point here is simply to point out that these laws- given by God himself- are morally bankrupt. There is no situation in which I would forgive any god who gave such commands or made allowances for such evil. I certainly wouldn't believe him to be morally perfect or omnibenevolent. It would take very little effort for me to say that whoever it is that authored these laws is the clear villain in this story.
Conclusion:
To bring this altogether, I want to answer one last question I've been asked in the past and I imagine will be asked in the future, "Could your mind be changed?" The answer to this question is more complicated than it may appear- but I'll try to keep it brief.
If this questions means anything along the lines of, "based on your current understanding of morality, could you ever believe that the biblical god is moral?" the answer is unequivocally no. In the same way as if someone were asking, "Could you ever consider rape to be moral?" the answer has to be, unequivocally no. The Bible is filled with a variety of commands and revelations about that god that makes me believe he is immoral. Even if somehow I could be convinced that I am interpreting the scripture wrong in the three areas I mention above, I would be hard pressed to believe that any god who gives out ultimatums like the Godfather is moral.
There is a way for my mind to be changed, but I would have to be convinced that morality isn't what I think it is or be presented a case for a non-Judeo-Christian god. Any god based on the Bible, assuming my understanding around morality holds, will be deemed immoral for the reasons I've already listed. For me the commands given by this god in the Bible are irreconcilable with a moral being in the same way the act of rape is irreconcilable with moral actions.
Before I leave you, I just want to remind the reader that this isn't a challenge to defend the god of the Bible. I don't believe in him and therefore think he has nothing to answer for (being that fictional characters can't actually be held accountable), however the believers in this god are moral agents with a responsibility to answer for their beliefs. Just like I would press a Nazi to justify their position, I press the Christian to justify theirs. Until such a time, I am reserved to the opinion that all Christians are ignorant of their holy book or morally bankrupt.
Comments
Post a Comment