A Review of _the God Delusion_ (Part 13)
After discussing specific situations of judgment in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of the whole world by the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that of the Amorites, Richard Dawkins virtually leaps to the conclusion that "modern morality, wherever else it comes from, does not come from the Bible" (279). If this is a thesis that he wants to hang his hat upon, he will need a new hat because the case he has presented has not been proven.
God brought the Flood upon all the wicked of mankind. He also rained down fire and brimstone upon the evil inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Does Christianity differ from these two events? No. God punishes sin. In the New Testament God promises to destroy the ungodly at the end of earth's existence with fire (2 Peter 3:10). Whether regarding the Flood or the fire at the end of time, mankind has had plenty of warning. He only has himself to blame for losing his life and his soul. The Bible is consistent regarding these judgments.
God does not need man's assistance to render judgment upon sin; the Old Testament describes Him doing that very thing. He commissions Israel to bring judgment upon the people of Canaan, who have now filled up their cup of iniquity (Gen. 15:16). His reason for using His people was, in part, to test their faithfulness to Him. He could have just destroyed them all by Himself; in fact, He did bring down the walls of Jericho on His own (Joshua 6:20). He later hurled down hailstones, also (Joshua 10:11). But He mainly conquered the land through a series of battles, which preserved the farmlands.
During this period, God ruled Israel. In this theocracy, the Israelites did as God told them. It was morally right because He commanded them to fulfill His will. In the New Testament, no theocracy exists. God's people have spiritual laws to keep, but we do not fight other nations. We have armor, but it is of a spiritual nature, as are the battles we fight. And, yes, our "modern morality" does come from New Testament Scriptures—by the authority of Jesus (Matt. 28:18).
The first covenant (Heb. 8:6-7) had been put to death; it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Christians have not been commanded to take up physical arms and fight other religions or any earthly government. In order for Dawkins' statement (modern morality does not come from the Bible) to be correct, he would need to prove that there is something that horrendous or deficient in the New Testament—not the Old.
Dawkins says Christians don't have an inside track in saying what is wrong and what is right (280), which is untrue, but even if it were, we would still have a standard—one that atheists lack. New Testament teaching cannot be assaulted or replaced. And he has nothing to replace it with anyway.
Failing to deal with this fact at this point, Dawkins blithely resumes his discussion of ethnic cleansing, which he opposes, but what standard does it violate—his? Obviously, it did not violate Hitler's standard. Was he wrong in seeking to exterminate the Jews? Dawkins would say, yes, and so would we, but we have a standard to base our conclusion on—the New Testament (Matt. 7:12). What's his reason?
He might make the argument that genocide is wrong, period. God can make the determination, however, to bring judgment upon a city or nation. If He authorizes the destruction of a people, the reason is that they merit it—and He just might have waited 400 years to give them a chance to repent. But where does God, in the New Testament, authorize any individual or nation to bring judgment on the Jews. He does not. Hitler made that decision on his own. The Jews in Germany were not worthy of death. No New Testament command authorizes the killing of the Jews. This is the reason that Christians have for saying that Hitler was wrong. He had no authority from God to kill anyone. Now, why does Dawkins say it was wrong? What's his standard?
Joshua and Jericho
The complaint against Joshua and Jericho is that walls do not tumble down because men shout and blow horns (280). Really? How condescending Dawkins is! On the next page, he will ask if those who abide by the teachings of the Bible "have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it" (281)? Christians do know what the Bible says because we read verses in their context. The only reason the walls of Jericho fell after the marching and the shouting and the sounding of the horns is that God said it would occur that way.
God tells Joshua: "See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor" (Joshua 6:2). They followed God's instructions, and the walls fell down. If they had not obeyed God, the walls would have remained intact. Their obedience to God's command was what made the walls fall, and it impressed upon them that the victory belonged to God—not to their own might. How unfortunate atheists cannot read the Bible objectively—to see what it actually teaches—instead of just to snipe at it.
Dawkins again lodges a complaint against all the inhabitants being put to death (280). He never tires of beating the same drum. He also objects to the death penalty, which included several offenses in the Old Testament (which Christians are not under). Dawkins apparently thinks that people should not have been put to death for adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, cursing one's parents, or working on the Sabbath day (281). Why not? What is the objective standard that prohibits the death penalty for those offenses? Israel was to be a holy nation, and these actions sullied it.
Christians have no power or authority to carry out such actions today, but if God's people were going to conquer and live in the land, they needed to be holy, as God is holy. How would that look to have a city full of homosexuals? Or for harlotry to be practiced? God held Israel to a higher standard than other nations who had, by and large, rejected Him. Israel was to be better. Today Christians are to set a high standard for the world to see, but no one is punished (at least, by Christians) for failure to live up to that standard.
The man who was stoned for violating the Sabbath day is called a "harmless gatherer of firewood" (280). By what standard does Dawkins rate him as harmless? First of all, he violated a law which he knew he should keep. Second, he rebelled against a law that was written on stone—one of the Ten Commandments. Third, he broke a law that was precisely worded:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gate (Ex. 20:8-10).
Is that specific enough? Shortly thereafter, this comment was added to the original commandment. "You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people" (Ex. 31:14). It begins to look as though Dawkins has a real problem with justice. He would likely volunteer to take God's place as Judge—if he believed in Him.
Atheists Good, Religion Bad
One of Dawkins' recurring themes is that many and sometimes great evils are done in the name of religion, but atheists are such decent chaps, who would never harm anyone. Of course, this is laughable. The example he provides comes from a newspaper article found in the Independent from February 8, 2007: "Historic Mecca, the cradle of Islam, is being buried in an unprecedented onslaught by religious zealots" (282). It seems one sect of Muslims fears that historical places may give rise to idolatry; so, they are determined to destroy artifacts. "I do not believe," says Dawkins, "there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca" or various other shrines or temples.
Has he ever heard of atheist Joseph Stalin? According to the Internet, in 1923 alone, Stalin demolished 1,212 churches and monasteries in Georgia alone. One atheist leader may destroy such buildings; others may not, but the point is that there is no objective standard to say that it is either right or wrong to do so.
It is the case that some religion is bad; some professing to be Christians are bad, but those who behave badly are not following the New Testament.
The New Testament
At long last, Dawkins is ready to tell everyone that the New Testament is not any better than the Old, although he shocks his readers when he says: "Jesus, if he existed (or whoever wrote his script if he didn't), was surely one of the great ethical thinkers of history" (283). The backhanded compliment fails. How could He be a great ethical thinker if He did not exist? And how could someone else be a great ethical thinker if they invented Him or pretended to be Him?
But think of this: "The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time" (283). He does realize, doesn't he, that in this sermon Jesus said to enter in at the narrow gate because the wide gate leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14)? He also likes the fact that Jesus did not harp on the Sabbath day. But Jesus upheld the observance of the Sabbath day when He said in the Sermon on the Mount:
"Whoever therefore breaks the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19).
As long as Jesus was alive, the Law was to be observed. Only when all things were fulfilled was the Sabbath-day observance done away (Christians meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week). Dawkins also praises Jesus for not deriving His ethics from Old Testament Scriptures. That covenant was fast becoming obsolete and ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13). Jesus initiated the new covenant; what was different about it?
Jesus still taught nine of the ten commandments. What changed was the fact that this covenant was made with all nations—not just Israel; therefore, commands are not given in a theocratic, national sense—but a personal basis. The worship also changed from a physical location with physical paraphernalia to an emphasis on the spiritual. Followers of Jesus meet in any location all around the world. We are to love our enemies instead of fighting them (Matt. 5:43-48). We are all priests, and Jesus is our high priest. In other words, the two covenants differ because they were designed for different purposes, and the system of worship is different as well, since Jesus is our only sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:12; 10:12).
Morality is, in fact, much stricter in the New Testament than in the Old. It is not enough to refrain from adultery; one cannot even look on a woman to lust after her (Matt. 5:27-28). Polygamy was never intended, since God made one Eve for one Adam; the practice is not authorized as part of the Christian system. Divorce can only be sought if one's mate is guilty of committing fornication. And homosexuality is still wrong (Rom. 1:24-28).
Furthermore, A Day of Judgment is still scheduled to occur for all mankind, whether they have done good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10). As our Creator, God has the right to judge our lives. Dawkins has the right to reject God, and God also has the right to reject him.