I think one of the biggest pitfalls biblical critics face is grasping at straws. One carefully constructed argument centered around one verse is more persuasive than throwing scores of verses against the wall and hoping one criticism sticks.
In my case, whenever I'm involved in a discussion on biblical atrocities, I really only bring up one example: 1 Samuel 15:3...
"3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
This is God commanding Saul to kill babies. If God didn't command this, then the Bible lies; if it lies it can't be inerrant or inspired.
So I ask Christians to agree or disagree with the following moral proposition: "Is it always wrong to kill an infant?"
If they say yes, then they have admitted that God authored sin by commanding Saul to sin.
If they say no, that it's okay to kill an infant if God says it's okay, then they have just proven to me that there moral system doesn't exclude pure barbarism, so why should I follow it and consider it the best moral system there is?
I find it curious how many Christians will decry non-believers as being moral relativists, but they don't realize they are moral relativists too! According to Christians the morality of an act is relative to how God feels about it in particular contexts. In the case of the Amalekites, it's okay to kill babies as if they were enemy combatants. But when a mother will die without a late-term abortion, that's not okay, not now not ever.
In my case, whenever I'm involved in a discussion on biblical atrocities, I really only bring up one example: 1 Samuel 15:3...
"3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
This is God commanding Saul to kill babies. If God didn't command this, then the Bible lies; if it lies it can't be inerrant or inspired.
So I ask Christians to agree or disagree with the following moral proposition: "Is it always wrong to kill an infant?"
If they say yes, then they have admitted that God authored sin by commanding Saul to sin.
If they say no, that it's okay to kill an infant if God says it's okay, then they have just proven to me that there moral system doesn't exclude pure barbarism, so why should I follow it and consider it the best moral system there is?
I find it curious how many Christians will decry non-believers as being moral relativists, but they don't realize they are moral relativists too! According to Christians the morality of an act is relative to how God feels about it in particular contexts. In the case of the Amalekites, it's okay to kill babies as if they were enemy combatants. But when a mother will die without a late-term abortion, that's not okay, not now not ever.
