Questioning God’s Morality: A Biblical and Philosophical Response (Part 1)

Is God immoral? The absolute lunacy of such a statement made it difficult to even posit here, but this is the allegation often pointed toward the “God of the Old Testament”. (Side Note: I abhor this statement, and we will visit this more fully later) For non-believers, the God of the Old Testament appears to be wholly different from the God of the New; this is putting it mildly, the charge is often accompanied by much more intense language. Is God different? Does He change? Has he been immoral at some time? 

This charge is the common weapon of atheists and agnostics alike. Those who don’t believe the Bible to be the word of God will point to the difference in character of God between the testaments as evidenced that (1) The Bible is the creation of men due to this inconsistency; (2) The Old Testament God is not benevolent because of His portrayal as jealous, His intense judgement, and His condonation of acts such as genocide. Most unfortunately, I have heard those who identify as Christian make similar claims. Needless to say, with some familiarity with the text of scripture, some knowledge of the cultural background, and the use of critical thinking skills, one will easily find all charges are unfounded.

It would be criminal to handle such a weighty topic in one thousand words or less (my ideal length for this and similar works) so we will handle these objections separately. 

First, we must deal with the most obvious objection to such a charge. The first question one must ask is on what basis can the atheist or agnostic objectively define morality? I would posit that the atheist has no foundation with which to make the charge. The biblical worldview has the revelation of God as its foundation to make moral clams, but on what basis can someone without such a foundation do the same? 

So often, I hear the self-professed atheist make claims such as “I don’t need a book to tell me how to be a good person.” This sounds like a powerful argument on its face. The often-missed context here is that this person has no objective “good” to point to. A subjective or comparative good is a shallow counterfeit, but it is the natural man’s bread and butter.

 The point here is that the natural man must borrow from our worldview in order to build their own consistently. There is no morality outside of God’s created order. The reason that humans have rights that far surpass that of animals is because they are created in the image of God. To borrow the argument of Pastor Jeff Durbin, outside of God, the natural man has no more a moral obligation to love one’s neighbor than to eat one’s neighbor. This statement may seem absurd, but there are tribes that engaged in cannibalism. From there perspective, this act was not immoral, but powerful. Fallen man cannot be his own moral compass; there must be an objective standard outside of himself from which he derives morality.

It is here that I would like to point out a strategy employed to arrive at this point. My heart for this blog is not simply to arm Christians with arguments to aid in their interaction, although that is a goal, but to also point out the skills utilized to develop the argument. I cannot impress upon you how important it is to simply listen and to ask questions. 

When I say to listen, that does not mean to listen with a pre-prepared response in mind; biding time while the interlocutor is speaking so that you can finally present a “gotcha” response. I remember that this was a strategy that I employed frequently when I began seeking out these interactions. My heart was in the right place, but those arguments are rarely as effective as planned. Rather, we must think through and respond to what the person is saying and that requires employing all your attention in listening and thinking through the actual presented argument.

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17 ESV)

Most arguments appear sound when first presented. It is only when one begins to examine an argument in more depth that the flaws become more apparent. What sort of flaws are we looking for? Things such as inconsistencies or faulty premises. A good way to discover these often carefully hidden flaws is to ask yourself questions. How does one come to this conclusion? Are they using equal scales? On what basis can such a claim be made? What are they really saying? Questions such as these will allow you to easily see how someone is borrowing from or distorting the truth. 

Takeaways

• Listen: Active listening is one of the most important skills for the apologist to develop. Without it, the pitfalls for the apologist are numerous. 
• Question: Questioning and seeking evidence at the right times can be incredibly powerful. This is also a skill that requires diligent development.