Rant: One of the biggest problems with non-believers is that they read a verse and do not know the context of what they are reading, yet they want to judge the entire text of Scripture (which they became an expert on through reading one verse and using shifting terminology). They read the Bible blindly and then expect to understand where Christ-followers are coming from. Don't quote the book if you don't know the Author. But if in your arrogance you insist to try to prove Christianity wrong, at least delve into the text in its entirety (and by this, I don't mean reading it in King James and presuming an english version is actually consistently and contextually accurate). Theology must be studied as anything else, googling the phrase “Biblical textual errors” won't make you a Theologian any more then an 8th grade Science project makes you a Scientist.
Initially in the article, Mr Hitchens lists (and then disrespects) each one of the 10 Commandments given to Moses. He tries to be humorous at parts (at which he fails profusely) and gives opinion on all the ways things should've been done. After he lists the Commandments, he goes on to list which Commandments we should keep and what should be done away with. I seriously encourage you to read the article before you proceed or this won't make much sense at all.
Mr. Hitchens claims that the 10 Commandments were “derived from situational ethics. They show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure.” He also claims that the God of Israel commanded Israel to murder and rape their enemies. Obviously, they were commanded to eliminate the peoples that worshipped other gods but I challenge anyone to provide a verse where God commands rape. You won't find it because rape is abominable in His eyes. The author notes Numbers 31:1–18 as justification for rape. This is the passage where Moses instructs the men to kill all the Midianites except for the virgin women whom they can have for themselves. I suppose any Scriptural novice could misconstrue these verses and claim these men raped the women but that isn't said nor implied. He doesn't say to rape, he says to keep them from death, the young women were given the opportunity to JOIN the chosen nation of Israel, no where is rape mentioned or condoned. The thread that runs from cover to cover in the Bible is to avoid sexual immorality (1st Corinthians 6:18, Job 31:1, Matthew 5:27-28, Romans 13:13-14, Ephesians 5:3-4). Why would God go against His very nature in just this passage? He wouldn't and He didn't.
In relation to the first 3 commandments, Mr Hitchens says this, “Numbers One through Three can simply go, since they have nothing to do with morality and are no more than a long, rasping throat clearing by an admittedly touchy dictator.” Do not be surprised that Hitchens wants to completely negate the Commandments that Jesus says are the most important (Matthew 22:37-40).Why would a secularist want to endorse loving the Lord with all our heart? He doesn't have a personal relationship with God, for if he knew the grace of salvation, he would understand the commandment to dedicate our heart, soul and mind to this Diety.
It is also apparent through the article that the author believes that Israel is our example and that Christians are striving to obey the way they obeyed (or more accurately, disobeyed). If he had studied the Bible at all in preparation for his article, he would know that the Bible speaks repeatedly of God's disappointment in Israel and more than once He leans toward destroying them for their disbelief and sin. The entire book of Hosea was written because God was showing that Israel had repeatedly disappointed Him and made itself a whore to other gods, yet in His forgiveness and grace, He purchased her back. Does the phrase “The people did what was right in their own eyes” ring a bell? It might have if Mr. Hitchens would've actually researched for his piece instead of writing based on presuppositions.
| This little response is just that: little. The aforementioned article is 3 pages long and I do not have the time to respond to the entire article. But even if I did, I don't know how many of you that are reading this would last as I could write for hours on the foolishness of Hitchens' disbelief and disrespect. Any kid fresh out of 1st year at the BI could easily combat Mr. Hitchens' poor attempt at derailing our beliefs and convictions. I invite you to read the article and make your own conclusions. |
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job on exposing the problems with an unbeliever's attempts to "exegete" Scripture. I'm not sure where the command to rape anyone is either, and I doubt if the translation could even be forced to mean that, for it would have to miss the fact that Hebrew, just like English, has its own precise word for "rape."
Beyond that, you provide a good defense for the foolishness of unbelief, and exposed that as usual, an atheist was attacking something theological without having done his homework.
I think though, and Ali said this was ok to bring up, that your critique is missing perhaps the most devastating parts. As I learned apologetics, which interestingly was not at any of the institutions I've attended, it generally involves a two-step procedure. One step is critiquing the unbelief from the perspective of belief, which you've just done in a concise form. The other part is critiquing unbelief from within its own presuppositions.
The latter is usually what turns out to silence the critic or at least substantially undermine the argument in a way that cannot be recovered from. If you'd like me to explain it more (here or via email) let me know, and I'd be happy to do so and point you to some resources that can better fuel your apologetic fire.
Two other points for thought. According to Romans 1:19ff, I would say that Hitchens actually does know the Author of the Book and that is actually part of his problem. He knows God, God's omnipotence extends to the minds of even hardened atheists like Hitchens. He can't erase the presence of God, no matter how hard he tries to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Second, I would say that a corollary of this is that Hitchens does have a personal relationship with God. The reason for this is that God can only be related to personally, and as Creator, God stands in relationship to every created being. The issue then is the quality of that relationship. Hitchens issue is ethical, not metaphysical. He already stands in personal relationship to God, albeit one of rebel to Lord. He needs to lay down his arms. You can empty the chamber for him by disarming his arguments, but only the Holy Spirit can motivate him to surrender his weapon.
You've helped him empty his gun (step one above), but you haven't convinced him of the futility of firing it again (step two). If you'd like more on step two, either peruse my thoughts against Dawkins on my blog, or just e-mail/facebook me. Sorry for the lack of brevity in commenting, but you know how it goes right? ;)
[...] Fair, but can be accessed electronically here. A good friend of mine has already blogged about it here and she does a superb job of challenging several errors in Hitchens’ thinking on the topic of [...]
ReplyDelete[...] Fair, but can be accessed electronically here. A good friend of mine has already blogged about it here and she does a superb job of challenging several errors in Hitchens’ thinking on the topic of [...]
ReplyDelete