I've just posted an unintentionally comic link from a Christian apologist determined to demonstrate how his God was not a moral monster.
It's weapons grade stupid. Hilariously absurd.
Where to begin. Oh yeah, how about the fact that it was ok for God to order the slaughter of women and children because they had become so defiled and mired in sin and depravity. But wait for it, God does offer them the lifeline of fleeing their lands and assigning themselves homeless rather than face the imminent Israeli onslaught. This sounds not dissimilar to events played out in modern day third world nations, but Hey Ho, it's apparently better to be a refugee than a dead native.
I'm just warming up. What should one do, from a biblical perspective, when a child cheeks his/her parents. It's perfectly simple, the parent should kill them. And for the simple fact the the child has sinned against God (vertically), rather than his parent (horizontally). Our intrepid apologist does go on to venture that there is not one single recorded incident of a parent actually carrying out this decree, but the Creator of the universe is perfectly clear on the issue.
And lastly, what to do when one happens across a man gathering sticks on the sabbath? A word of caution perhaps? A scowl and a tut tut? Oh no, and yes you've guessed it. One must take the poor, stick laden fellow in front of the tribe and stone him until dead.
Call me excessively liberal, but none of the examples highlighted appear to illustrate reason at its zenith? One could be forgiven for thinking that the good Lord had a bit of a penchant for violence. In fact, assuming these events are historical (None are), then God appears well up for all manner of orgiastic savagery at more or less the drop of the hat.
Ok, ok, I know that no thinking person believes that any of the above actually occurred, but that's not the thing that concerns me. What strikes me as terrifying is that at the start of the 21st century there exist educated people who seek to justify the brute savagery I've just referred to. Worse, there's no shortage of people willing to soak up these non justifications quicker than you can say Jack Flash. It's majestically bizarre, isn't it?
I admit that most believers I know are not prone to ethnic cleansing, child murder, or the stoning of sabbath breakers. Concerning the latter, if they were would they be required to stone those that man the church book stalls each Sunday?
I digress, and my tongue is firmly in cheek here. I just wanted to illustrate the mind gymnastics that some deploy to defend a work of fiction, a silly old collection of writings more commonly referred to as the Bible.
Talk to an average believer, and they'll admit that they don't believe any of the above actually happened. But ask yourself, who gave them permission to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which historical? I've read the Bible, and nowhere does it say that we can cherry pick.
To conclude, the other day I saw a status update from a well educated Christian female who chose to self define as a foolish believer. It was intended to be a remark laced with irony. On reflection, perhaps she wasn't so far from the truth.