dannyh44

After being invited to join a local mega-church on many occasions, I decided to respond to the associate pastor who had extended the invitation. I will post my response below. Please tell me if you find any flaws in my logic and/or what you think his rebuttal may be (he has yet to respond, it's been over a week).

"Hi,
Thanks for the response. My problem arises from the fact that I cannot, in good conscience, believe that the Bible is wholly inspired and inerrant. Because I believe that there are some universal moral constants, that is, that there are some things that are always wrong in every situation for all times, I cannot believe in inerracy and total inspiration.

A good example of this is 1 Samuel 15 and the story of the Amalekites. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. My inner moral conscience tells me it is always wrong to kill babies, fetuses, and children who pose no personal threat to you (I don’t believe it’s wrong to shoot a child who happens to be aiming a missile launcher at you.) But to summarily kill women and children because they happen to be there is wrong to me. However, if you believe the Bible is wholly inerrant, then you must necessarily believe that, at least sometimes, murdering babies, fetuses, children and pregnant women is sometimes the good and moral thing to do.

I am very familiar with the popular attempts by apologists, such as Giesler, Hannagraaf, Strobel, Kreeft, etc., to resolve this problem. They say God was actually being merciful by killing the children. Maybe he was. But this opens up a lot of questions.

If it was a merciful act, as Geisler and others contend, and sometimes killing the defenseless is actually good, then maybe the abortion doctor sniper in the 90s really was acting out God’s will. In fact, if this reasoning is valid, then Andrea Yates should be lauded as a selfless saint for mercifully killing her 5 children so that they would die before the age of accountability and be assured of a place in heaven. If he told Israel to do it then, maybe he really did tell Mrs. Yates to do it a couple years ago? I don’t think so. To me, this line of reasoning is dangerous and false. So then, how can the issue be resolved?

Even if God was being merciful by killing babies and pregnant women, one must still concede that the statement: “Murdering babies is always wrong� is not true. One must concede that the act’s moral value is dependent upon the context, i.e. the situation. It is a case of situational ethics within the Bible.

In the end, I find it hard to believe that the most intelligent being in the universe could find no other way to deal with those people and babies than to “kill’em all.� And even if God wanted the babies dead, why did he have to use the sword of Israel to do it? Why didn’t he do it himself like he did in Egypt? To me, the answer is plain. Simply apply Occam’s Razor. I find it much more plausible to believe that Samuel (or the author of 1 Sam.) Used a “thus sayeth the Lord� to justify the genocide and imperialism being imposed than I do to beleive the almighty, loving God commanded baby-killing and genocide.

I’ve had people tell me that in this situation, I’m imposing my own personal moral sentiment on God and that I can’t do that. Not only is this reply tautological in nature, it is a major copout. If God gave me a moral conscience, as the Bible and scholars such as C.S. Lewis tell me, then why can’t I listen to it and trust it?

The conviction of my conscience tells me genocide is wrong and murdering fetuses is wrong. This section of the Bible tells me that it isn’t always wrong. Therefore, I conclude that this part of the Bible is not inspired.

I know that one of the core beliefs necessary for membership to your church is the complete inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. This is why I feel I would be dishonest if I attended your church. I simply don’t believe murdering babies and fetuses is ever morally right and you do.

Of course, I could be wrong. There may be a glaring flaw in my logic. I just haven’t been able to identify it. If you can, please point it out to me. But if you can’t, please be honest about that too."

Is this a convincing argument against inerrancy, or are there better ones?

Thanks,
DanH.

asajoseph

I can't believe you'll find any preacher worth his salt who will argue the case of Christianity to you on the basis of biblical innerancy. Frankly, even the most naive of Christians will recognise that trying to prove biblical innerancy as a witness is a surefire way of converting nobody. Not that they won't believe it, but if they're trying to convert you, they won't focus on it.

I imagine he'll generally sidestep the question, and point out Jesus' love or something similair.

If he even bothers to write back at all.

Asa

judge

Was the preacher insisting that you had to believe the bible was inspired and inerrant?

Godless Wonder

Deanna Laney is the crazy Texas woman you want for this example, not Andrea Yates. Andrea Yates was judged sane, she thought the devil wanted her to kill her children. I wonder if the jury thought to themselves "about what you'd expect from the devil, why did she comply?" Deanna Laney thought God was testing her, like Abraham. Apparently, that's just insane.

About not judging BibleGod, those who say BibleGod is good are also judging him. If you didn't judge God, then you would have no opinion about his goodness or badness. You have simply arrived at a different verdict than those who say God is good.

dannyh44

Yes, complete inerrancy and inspiration is a core belief of this church.

dannyh44

Wonder,
Thanks, I thought Yates was the one who thought that killing her own children before the age of accountability would save them from hell. ...And I didn't know she was actually found sane. That's weird as well as depressing.

asajoseph

Is he seriously trying to convert you by proving an inerrant Bible??? Or is it something that you are bringing up? I only ask, because if he's not made it an issue now, I think the chances are that he will sidestep your point entirely.

You MIGHT have more success with a 'Jesus doesn't exist' type argument, or better yet 'God doesn't exist'. Although be warned, he'll be well prepared to deal with these...

Probably :rolling:

dannyh44

Asa,
He inquired as to why I hadn't returned to his church (Initially,I went as a favor with some neighbors...it's a long story) I then read the core beliefs of his church as listed on its website, and then responded with this reasoning.

I thought I start with something simple that he could not refute, ie, If the Bible is inerrant, then you must believe murdering babies, fetuses, etc. it sometimes morally good.

You're right, though. I doubt I'll get a response.

asajoseph

Danny,

Whilst I aggree wholeheartedly that the Bible contains situational (relative, not subjective!!!) morality, this does not necessarily preclude absolute (objective) morality. Furthermore, from your statement, it also follows that whilst baby-killing MIGHT be right in some contexts, it is not right in every context.

I've managed to start a discussion about this in the morality section. Feel free to hop in.

Asa

Toto

A digression has been split off here.