Reply to Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,”  sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings.

Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot. [/quote]

NP here.  Pp is what's known as a "Christian apologist".  They have supposedly logical and apparently intellectual answers to any questions you might have about Christianity and such answers are consistently positive toward the faith.  Ask anything and they will answer in a way that defends or "apologizes" for Christianity.

It's not a secret or a pejorative. There are respected biblical scholars who practice "Christian apologetics" -  "...a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics .   For instance, Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig are Christian Apologists.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics