Tyndale House scholar Dr. Peter Williams is interviewed on the topic: Is the Old Testament Ethical? in this European Leadership Forum podcast episode. Williams addresses the various indictments brought against Old Testament passages by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, as well as other criticisms. A phenomenal interview.Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
10 comments :
Is the Old Testament Ethical?
Not to modern eyes...
Of course, for a Christian - how can they say God has done something immoral?
Lee
That's because the Christian has modern eyes with proper glasses.
Finally got around to listening to this podcast.
Can I ask... does anyone actually like the arguments being made in it?
Sounds awful to me... really bad.
I will not fill up the space here with my dislike – I have my own blog
Lee
Lee, I've read your rant on your blog and have to disagree with your characterization of the actions taken in the OT as being essentially the same as the actions taken during the Third Reich in Nazi Germany.
I'm not sure how profitable a discourse on the subject will be, though, since you don't seem to a.) believe that an almighty God exists, b.) believe that such an almighty God has the right and responsibility to execute justice, or c.) that the context of the OT matters.
I think your biggest disagreement is with the notion that you are not the judge of the universe and that God would dare to claim that position and require your acquiescence to that fact as a requisite to a right relationship with Him.
Wes, is right it is the only reason why people reject God. The pots rebelling against the potter.
Hi Wes,
Happy to have a friendly discussion - but may I recommend, since this will probably relate more to my 'rant', that we take our discussions over there?
http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-of-sickest-most-vile-podcast-ever.html
I will just comment briefly here to a few of your points.
I'm not sure how profitable a discourse on the subject will be
Don’t shut me out before we have even started the discussion - why would you want to do that?
though, since you don't seem to a.) believe that an almighty God exists
You are right, but for the sake of argument/discussion – I am happy to assume the God described in the bible exists.
So we can get past this point.
b.) believe that such an almighty God has the right and responsibility to execute justice
That would be the whole point of the discussion – I disagree with you on this point.
Can you defend your position, I think not.
So not believing this point, IS the point.
Or do you only want discussions with those who believe you?
or c.) that the context of the OT matters.
Now that is an assertion against me that is just plain wrong – of course context matters.
Now Wes, do you have anything to discuss?
I think so, but if I am to agree with you 100% before we start a discussion – this would say more about you than me.
Take care… and let’s take this up at my place.
Lee
Marcus McElhaney-
Most people don't reject God out of some need to rebel. They, like me, do not believe in God because there is no real evidence for his existence, or the truth of any of the claims that the various groups of believers make about him.
I can see why you would need to believe that atheists have "rebelled" against God. It's more comforting to think that, as opposed to having to consider that the evidence just isn't there.
Marcus McElhaney,
Wes, is right it is the only reason why people reject God.
How can I reject something I do not believe exists?
I can only reject something that I actually believe exists.
Can I reject the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Do I reject unicorns? Do I reject fairies at the bottom of my garden?
Your 'argument' is just plain silly.
As Jonathan pointed out – you might want to believe I reject God, but you have no idea.
Can you even define the God you believe in so I can decide whether to reject the idea or not?
Thanks
Lee
Lee,
"I can only reject something that I actually believe exists"
I found this statement, if not false, at least weak. It could be because of the different concept we assign to "reject". If we define "reject" as "to refuse to recognize or accept", then it is possible and valid to say that someone who doesn't believe in God rejects Him.
I would suggest this statement:
"I can only reject something that actually exists" (If there is possible for God to objectively exists, then is also valid to affirm that the one who denies His existence, is rejecting Him).
Specifically, from a christian perspective, if you don't believe in God you are refusing, at the same time, to accept other things (for example: that God is your creator, that He sent his Son to die for you, etc). Imagine someone sending you an email that says "Lee, I love you so much. Crazily in love, Anne". Even if you don't know if that secret lover exists, you will be objectively rejecting her love if you just think "Well, I don't believe she exists... it's probable a mere joke!”.
You said "For the sake of argument/discussion – I am happy to assume the God described in the bible exists". Well, that's exactly what you should do to understand how you can reject God even when you don't believe in Him.
Johnathan
You wrote, "because there is no real evidence for his existence"
This is a 'dogmatic assertion', and I request; please prove that there is no real evidence.
Historic, biblical Christianity has always provided and presented a sound case for God's existence that is historically, scientifically and archaeologically based and proven.
When examined in an objective, critical and thoughtful manner the evidence is over whelming for Christianity.
Have you put forth an effort to investigate or do you simply mock from the sidelines? God is right in front of your face and is extremely clear:
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:20.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.