… A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homopho­bic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2008)

A three year old child may slap its father in his face only because the father holds it up on his knee.

—Cornelius Van Til, Toward a Reformed Apologetic (1972)

The Charge of Genocide

The word genocide is a modern one. It was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a brilliant legal scholar originally from Poland, but Jewish by descent. The word literally means “killing a tribe.” Lemkin’s first definition was narrow: “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.” He quickly enlarged it to include “a coordinated plan…aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” He included within his definition attacks on culture, language, religion, and social and political institutions. Lemkin’s work grew out of his familiarity with the Turkish slaughter of Armenian Christians during the First World War and the Simele massacre of Christian Assyrians in Iraq in1933. In his most important work, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), Lemkin analyzed the legal policies and procedures that Nazi Germany put in place to begin the work of genocide in its occupied territories.

Today there are those who charge the God of Scripture with genocide. God had ordered Israel to destroy completely the inhabitants of Canaan—to “save alive nothing that breatheth”; to “utterly destroy” the people of Canaan; to “show no mercy” (Deut. 20:16-17; 7:2). Was this genocide or something else? Why was God so wholesale?

What God Actually Commanded

The first time God addressed the matter, His concern wasn’t the extermination of the Canaanites. Rather, He promised to drive them out of the Land. He promised to use hornets as well as Israel’s armies (cf. Deut. 7:20).

And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee (Ex. 23:28-33; cf. Deut. 7:12-26).

Throughout later passages, this emphasis reoccurs (cf. Duet. 4:38; Josh. 3:10; 13:6; 17:8; 23:5). God’s goal was to drive out those who held the Land and to grant possession of it to Israel according to His promises (Num. 33:52-56). God didn’t allow Israel to track down and destroy every single Canaanite they could find.

Still, those who remained, those who chose to fight the armies of Israel, did fall under the ban: they were dedicated to total destruction. In the end Israel killed a great many Canaanites. This was one important phase of Yahweh’s war against evil.

The Wars of Yahweh

This war began in the Garden of Eden. God’s curse physically altered the created order while His redemptive grace sustained it (Gen. 3). In the centuries that reached to the Flood, God’s Spirit strove with growing apostasy and bore prophetic witness to the judgment to come (Gen. 6; Jude 14-15). In the Flood God laid waste to the planet and destroyed a worldwide civilization (Gen. 7). He saved only eight souls out of millions, if not billions. At Babel He brought confusion to human language and scattered the peoples of the Earth (Gen. 11). On the plains of Jordan He turned Sodom and Gomorrah into flaming ruins (Gen. 19). At the Exodus He overthrew the might of Egypt and led His people to freedom (Ex. 14). Through most of this war, God’s people were called mainly to prophetic witness and faithful living. But the war against evil during those centuries was much more than a moral or intellectual struggle. Thousands and millions died under God’s judgment.

When Israel finally reached the borders of Canaan, the nature of the war changed. God put a sword in the hand of His people and ordered them to carry out His judgments. What Joshua began, the later judges continued. Then came Saul and David, who were also called to fight “the battles of the LORD” (1 Sam. 18:17; 25:28). But even as God called Israel to a military participation in His war against evil, He also began to direct His sanctions against Israel’s own disobedience. Both by prophetic witness and by the sword of alien armies, God fought against wickedness within the covenant community (1 and 2 Kings).

With the coming of Christ, Yahweh’s war came to focus in covenant redemption. The heart of God’s attack on evil was the death and resurrection of His Son. We now live a time of gospel-witness where Yahweh’s primary means of warfare is His Spirit-empowered word. This is not to say that God no longer brings judgment against evil, whether by natural catastrophe or by the sword of the magistrate. But the sword of the Spirit receives the overwhelming emphasis in the New Testament (Eph. 6:10-18; Heb. 4:12; Rev. 19:11-21; cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-6). Jesus rides through history slaying the nations with “the sword of His mouth.” One day, however, God’s longsuffering will come to an end. Judgment will fall. Jesus will return in power and glory to raise the dead and judge the world. God will sentence His enemies to a fiery hell. No more second chances.

Given all of this, it is a mistake to judge one phase of the war by what God does or doesn’t do in any other phase. God’s purposes in the conquest of Canaan were unique to that time and place, but they were most certainly His.

God’s Purposes

First among those purposes was the fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. That promise embraced, and laid the foundation for, the coming of the Messiah. God was preparing a people through whom His Son would enter the world and a place to which He would come. The promise of the Land was key to God’s plan of redemption. When Abraham inquired after details and asked for further assurance, God gave him a rough timetable. Abraham’s descendants would serve a foreign power for 400 years before they would inherit the Land. The reason: the iniquity of the Canaanites was not yet full. The tribes of Canaan received a gracious 400-year reprieve (Gen. 15:13-16).

But during those centuries the Canaanites continued in their sins. Their wickedness escalated. Their crimes against God included sorcery, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, sodomy, and bestiality (Deut. 18:9-14; Lev. 18:24-30). Not only did the Canaanites practice these things—they elevated them to the role of religious service (Deut. 12:31). Canaanite culture became a moral cancer that threatened all the nations round about them.

God, of course, was especially concerned with Israel. If God’s people didn’t drive out the Canaanites, they would eventually intermarry with them. Israel would be seduced into worshipping the Canaanite fertility deities (Deut. 7:1-4; 20:10-18). In the end, such apostasy would move God to destroy His own people and drive them out of the Land. It seems Israel could possess the Land only as long as she remained faithful to Yahweh (Deut. 11:22-23). In this sense, God did not play ethnic favorites—a lesson Israel was slow to learn (Matt. 3).

Is God Evil?

Yahweh’s critics—the new atheists among them—insist that God’s commands to destroy the Canaanites were evil. But what exactly do they mean? They could mean that God’s commands were inconsistent with His nature as it is revealed in the rest of Scripture. Or they could mean that God’s commands violate some standard of good and evil that is higher than God’s nature.

The first charge is an attempt to set God against Himself, or one part of Scripture against the rest. It is an attack on the consistency and infallibility of Scripture. As such, it is an indirect attack on the existence of God. If we accept the charge, we are left with a God who lacks internal coherence or a God who can’t reveal Himself properly; that is, one who is limited by His own creation. Such a God is no God at all.

The second charge sets God in the dock and accuses Him of wickedness. But we must ask His prosecutors, “What is the nature and basis of your accusation?” Or more plainly, “Whose law has God broken?” After a moment of confusion, the prosecutors may respond with something like: “It’s wrong to order the slaughter of thousands of men, women, and children. Everyone knows that!” A familiar but very lame answer.

First, it simply isn’t true. The Canaanites, for example, were firmly committed to human sacrifice, particularly child sacrifice, in the name of their gods. And even today there are tens of thousands of people who believe that killing children in the womb is a morally acceptable practice even though they acknowledge that those children are biologically (if not otherwise) human. Ask Hitler. Ask Mao. Ask Stalin. Nope, all men are not convinced that mass homicide is morally wrong. But even if we had such a consensus, we would still have to ask, “So what?” How does human opinion create a moral absolute that binds other humans, let alone the One who made those humans? Why should human opinion matter to God?

Any real moral criticism of God would have to rest on a standard above God, one by which He can and should be measured. But what could this standard be? Where could it come from? And why should God pay any attention to it?

Who God Is

The central issue here involves our understanding of who and what God really is. The God of Scripture presents Himself as self-existent in His Being and infinite in His perfections. He is the Creator of space, time, and matter and as such exists beyond their limitations and constraints. In comparison with Him, all the nations of the world are “less than nothing, and vanity” (Isa. 40:17). The distance between God and humanity is like that between the potter and his clay—infinite (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:20-21). And so there can be no other standards above or beyond God. God is absolute while creation is finite. Good and evil must be what He says they are. There is no higher court.

Of course, if there is no God, there are no absolutes, no right and wrong, no good and evil. Genocide, child sacrifice, racism, rape—all these things are morally neutral, for morality itself is a delusion. Good and evil become nonsense words. Whatever is, is “right.” God’s critics have no grounds for complaint beyond their emotional reflexes: they don’t like what He commands, just as some people don’t like broccoli. Yet the critics try to have it both ways. They borrow the biblical category of absolute right and wrong—something only an absolute God can provide—and then turn around and use it against God Himself. They are like the little girl who must sit on her father’s lap in order to slap his face.

Conclusion

Did Yahweh order genocide? Strictly speaking, no. God told His people to drive the inhabitants of Canaan out of the Promised Land and to kill any who would not leave. The issue was not their ethnicity, but their monstrous religion and their moral corruption.

Even so, God’s command came in the context of great mercy. God had a lot of patience with the folks who lived in Canaan—400 years and more. And even when judgment was at hand, God gave them proof of His power and wrath. They knew what He had done to Egypt (Josh. 2:10). They knew His promises to Israel. They could have fled; they could have repented. Rahab did (Heb. 11:31). They chose to defy and fight God instead.

In the end God’s judgment against Canaan wasn’t as severe as the Flood or as wholesale as the destruction of Sodom. In fact, the number of Canaanites who were killed is a small fraction of the number of lives God takes every year in our time—some 56 million. But the judgment against Canaan was a startling warning to mankind. Ezekiel tells us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (18:23; 33:11). But God does judge the wicked. He also honors His own holiness and justice by enforcing His laws. One day He will judge the world. In that day He will have no critics.

For Further Reading:

Francis Schaeffer, Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975).

Rick Wade, “The Yahweh War and the Conquest of Canaan,” Bible.org, 2010. <http://bible.org/article/yahweh-war-and-conquest-canaan>

John Piper, “The Conquest of Canaan” November 7, 1981, <http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/112981m.htm>

Tremper Longman III, “The Case for Spiritual Continuity,” in Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on Canaanite Genocide, ed. Stanley Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready, Directions for Defending the Faith (Atlanta: American Vision/ Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996).

6 Comments

  • Avatar
    jwmort Posted February 5, 2012 11:55 am

    I’m having a discussion with an “atheist”, who is a friend of a friend on Facebook. I’m working on a response to his post to me, would be interested to see what others have (please keep it civil and not “preachy”).

    Here is his post to me:

    Jeff, an omnipotent God doesn’t get to pass the buck of responsibility to mere humans for what It chooses to do. Pharoah’s disobedience does not force God’s hand, nor was the murder of children the only available recourse. That you think disobedience justifies infanticide displays the vey point I’m trying to make. What kind of Evil uses the murder of children as coercion against a political leader? A terrorist. That’s who.

    As for being an atheist, it depends on the conception of God under discussion. For specifically detailed conceptions of God which is actively involved in the lives of human beings, I am generally an atheist, because we can test for their existence and come up lacking. Zeus and Jehovah would produce Zeus-like and Jehovah-like behavior in the world around us consistent with their supporting scriptures. When we fail to find that kind of overt displays of power and authority, we can consider them reasonably disconfirmed. What motivates me to remain generally agnostic is that there are many conceptions of God which would not produce evidence within the scope of our experience. Such a God could exist without anyone every knowing or having reason to believe it. So long as such Gods can be conceived, I must maintain a mere refusal to believe rather than the bold assertion of their non-existence.

    However, being unable to disconfirm such Gods does not prevent me from concluding them wholely irrelevant to human existence. Any claim whose content does not sufficiently overlap with the content of your own experience sufficient for you to determine its truth or falsehood is not relevant to your existence.

    I tend to separate conceptions of God into two categories:

    •those which are consistent in their behavior and active enough in the world around us to be experienced, understood and tested for.

    •those which are not consistent, or not active enough, or are not a part of this universe and subsequent to its laws, and as such, does not fall within the scope of our experience, understanding, language or logic.

    The first kind can be confirmed or disconfirmed, and belief should follow accordingly.

    The second kind are wholely irrelevant to human existence. Whether or not they exist simply doesn’t affect human beings.

    God was a mistaken attempt to explain why things happen by cultures which didn’t understand physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, or medicine. We have come along way since that state of ignorance. If we have corrected their alchemy, their astrology, their blood letting, their slavery, why still cling to their theology?

    Jeff, let me point out a very important distinction between God murdering the first born children of Egypt as a means to coerce the dictator of that nation into obedience, and a woman choosing to terminate her own pregnancy. Abortion doesn’t involve killing the baby of another set of parents, as God’s infanticide in the 10th plague of Exodus did. Abortion is not used as a means of terrorist coercion, but simply as the exercise of an individual’s rights. The first born children in Exodus were already born and independent of their mothers, blastocysts and developing feti in first trimester are not.

    Jeff, this leads to one of the two major criticisms I can raise against Ethical Monotheism. The basis of Liberty is that single axiom that each person belongs to herself, that her life, her time and effort, and the fruits of her labors are her property, to be conducted as she sees fit. But under Ethical Monotheism, all human beings become nothing more than God’s creations, the fruit of God’s time and effort, and thus God’s property to be conducted as God sees fit. In a single swoop, the Creationism of EM destroys liberty. This is why Christians challenge abortion and gay rights, because they do not believe that individuals should have the freedom to conduct themselves as they see fit, but rather as God sees fit. Which leads to the second criticism.

    EM undermines the function of morality. Morality deals with the suffering and well being of conscious creatures, and how these things are affected by the choices we make. Morality deals with facts about the neurology, physiology, psychology and environment of the conscious creature. It is by evaluating these aspects of the puppy’s growth and that we can determine that kicking said puppy is immoral. This is evident of the effects it will cause in the puppy’s physical and mental development.

    EM undermines morality by shifting focus away from concern for the suffering and well being of conscious creatures and placing utmost importance on obedience to God’s Will. When “doing what God says” becomes more important than “not causing people to suffer”, then all manner of atrocities becomes “justifiable”. This is how the Inquisition justified torturing innocent men and women for imaginary crimes like “witchcraft” and “heresy”. This is how the Hebrews felt justified in systematically exterminating eight of the nine tribes (enslaving the 9th) who dwelt upon the “promised” land. Its how you are justifying God’s murder of egyptian children… because Pharoah didnt do what God told him to do.

    Now… as to your last question, that watered down regurgitation of Pascal’s Wager.

    “The ultimate question … if I am wrong, and I die and enter nothingness, what have I lost? Now, if you are wrong and enter before the Creator of all and are turned away because you turned your back on the Truth, what will you have lost?”

    Let’s really think about this:

    Lets say you die with your Christian faith intact, and you enter the Afterlife to find… Allah ruling Heaven. Allah does not take kindly to your blasphemous idolatry of Jesus, and so you are punished for all eternity.

    Lets say you die to find that the Latter Day Saints have it right, and Jesus Christ of the LDS finds your lack of faith in the Book of Mormon and the prophecy of Joseph Smith to be “luke warm faith”, and so you are spit out of his mouth and proceed into damnation.

    Lets say you die with your Christian faith intact, but God being All Knowing, remembers this conversation, in which you couched your faith as a kind of “hedge betting” to “cover all the bases” rather than being actual and sincere, and so God, seeing through the veil of this hedge betting faith, spits you out of His mouth as lukewarm.

    You can extrapolate the previous two examples for the multitude of possible Gods, and the fraction of those which will punish your mistaken faith.

    But lets consider some of the other possibilities:

    Perhaps you live your life according to the Christian doctrine, only to die, without an Afterlife. You say you have lost nothing…and yet, you lost all the time and effort of your one and only existence which was spent in service to a non-existent God and a false doctrine. This is truly the most pressing criticism. You are wagering your limited existence on a doctrine whose truth you cannot demonstrate. You thereby run the risk of wasting that limited existence on ideas which were simply false.

    So now to your question… What will I do if I die and face the Christian God at the “pearly gates”? I will speak candidly about the evidence which motivated my beliefs and the lack of sufficient support for the Christian doctrine. I will issue my criticisms of Biblical inaccuracy and the contradictions with which Christian doctrine is laden. I will defend my reliance upon Rational Empiricism as utilizing the only tools with which I came into this world: sensory organs and a rational mind. God did not design me with a book in my hand, but with Perception that I might experience the world around me, and Reason that I might understand my experience. Those are the two primary tools upon which all subsequent learning and understanding must rest. If any claims or beliefs fail to meet their basic standards of Empirical or Rational evidence, they are unworthy of my belief.

    I tell you truly… I would more trust any existing God to value my honesty and my reason rather than your arbitrary and dishonest faith.

    For that is precisely what Faith is: Arbitrary and Dishonest. Arbitrary because its method of belief selection and maintenance is unguided by any standard or criteria other than the individual whim and preference, Dishonest because it allows the assertion of truth of claims for which the individual either lacks supporting evidence or faces disconfirming evidence. Faith is an excuse which otherwise rational people use to maintain beliefs when evidence does not allow.

    I meant to have included this earlier when speaking on the disconfirmation of the Meddling Gods of Ethical Theisms. Jeff, you said,

    “He still exists, just because you think the wrath of a vengeful God is justification for not believing doesn’t stop Him from being.”

    It isn’t that I think such an evil God doesn’t exist, simply because the description is evil. I think that Jehovah doesn’t exist because Jehovah, if actual and persistent today as described in His supporting scripture, WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO MISS!!! This is a God which murdered children in response to the enslavement of the Hebrews. Wouldn’t that God have been equally obvious in WWII in His wrathful punishment of the Nazis for their extermination of the descendents of those Hebrews? This is what I mean by “finding Jehovah-like behavior in the world around us.” Jehovah once destroyed two cities for sexual misconduct (Sodom and Gomorrah), so why aren’t San Fran and New Orleans facing a similar fate?

    I cannot believe in a vengeful God because I don’t see any evidence of divine vengence in the world around me. Rapist and Child Molesters go unpunished. Abusive husbands and military criminals face no smiting or raining sulfur. Jeff, the God which those ancient Hebrews believed in is evidence of their worldview. Lets remember that their worldview was woefully ignorant of what actually underlies most physical processes. Shouldn’t that make their theology all the most suspicious?

    As I said earlier… we have corrected the astrology, the alchemy, the slavery, the blood letting of ancient barbaric cultures… so why do you still cling to their theology?

    One last note… If you read the Torah, that God was consistently active in the lives of those who believed in Him. He was active in public, overt displays of power and authority. He commanded and rewarded and punished. Jeff, if God did such things with me, I might have genuine reason to believe. (I would still have some questions regarding my inability to distinguish Deity from a sufficiently advanced Alien, but thats another conversation). But the fact is… I’ve received no such interaction from On High. At this point the Christian Doctrine implores me to “have faith”, ie “to accept our doctrine as true without compelling evidence, and despite the disconfirming evidence.” But Jeff… what would compel me to lie to myself like that? What boon or prize is valuable enough that I should purchase it at the cost of my own intellectual honesty and existential integrity?

    “Consequences” Picture a mother warning her child several times not to break the rules, and the child continues to disobey, the mother takes the child’s puppy and holds it under the bathwater until the kicking stop. When interviewed by the police, the mother says, “I didn’t drown the puppy, my daughter’s disobedience did. Consequences.”

    Tell me you think that defense would hold water. Why do you think it does when you apply it to an Omniscient, Omnipotent God?

    I would also be interested to hear how a Omniscient God can become upset at anything… It has foreknowledge of the event for all eternity, and has ever power to change the event as It sees fit. If perhaps the event is caused by the Free Willed choice of a being whose Free Will God values moreso than affecting the undesirable event, then God is still siding with His own priorities.

    If human beings look down on wrath, on reaction from anger, as a petty, lesser trait of immature people…why do you conceive of such a characteristic existing in an Eternal, All Knowing, All Powerful God?

    • Avatar
      akcjhc Posted February 5, 2012 1:10 pm

      I would recommend “Who Made God” by Edgar Andrews. He is a physicist who addresses several of the arguments your friend of a friend has posted. Also, A.W.Pink’s collective “Gleaning in…” series, as those will illuminate that most critics of the Old Testament do not understand the portraits of Christ, also called shadows but collectively known as Typology, and therefore come to erroneous conclusions about God. There’s a gentleman named S.A.Chronister who does web lectures on both of these authors and more, who I’ve found to be a wonderful resource when talking to atheists (or theists, agnostics, pantheists, etc.). You can find his lectures at Sermon audio and I think iTunes under his church’s name, Cliffside Community Chapel. And finally, sometimes it helps to remember that you are not to cast your pearls before…, well – I don’t know your friend of a friend so I won’t finish that saying.

      • Avatar
        jwmort Posted February 5, 2012 1:32 pm

        Thanks for the references. I’ve already engaged him in some discussions, he’s very bitter towards the “church”, which means he’s been burned by sanctimonious religious people. It’s a pity that God’s grace wasn’t shown in action as opposed to beating this young man with a bunch of scripture. I agree with him, how can one argue a point quoting scripture, when he has absolutely no faith this scripture is real! He needs a real discussion and a real demonstration of grace than the ones he’s seen.

        My pastor wants to have coffee with him so he can shake his hand, and talk honestly and sincerely with him. Before anyone says that’s a “bad idea” I go to church in a skating rink, we have 3 services, around 1200 attendees a week, and I’ve only seen pictures of my pastor in a suit!

  • Avatar
    Robert Posted February 13, 2012 12:12 pm

    In World War Two, an airforce base was set up on a South Pacific Island where the natives had no technology and had never seen a white man. They enjoyed the “silver birds” that brought “cargo” to them in abundance. After the “silver birds” left when the war was over, the natives built replica “birds” out of coconut trees and vines, hoping to lure the giant birds and their “cargo” back. Thus was born the “Cargo Cult”.
    The average understanding of God in our religions is probably very similar. A Savior may come but centuries later His teachings are encrusted with man made confusion and distortion. Our churches (not to mention the government) probably look very much like the Cargo Cult natives to God. Descriptions of ancient happenings doesn’t make God “genocidal” or any of the other misunderstandings on the part of the Atheists. They shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Throwing out the “bathwater” of human confusion doesn’t mean there is no God or that He is evil. It simply means our human understanding needs to be expanded and deepened and perhaps our religious institutions and understanding, much of it passed on from the Dark Ages, needs to be cleaned and re-newed. The first step: focus on the words and deeds of the Savior: “Love the Lord thy God with all they heart, all they mind, all they soul…and thy neighbor as thyself.” That teaching will never go out of date but will last until the end of time. We better get to work.

  • Avatar
    fidgetystickler Posted February 21, 2012 12:26 pm

    the author of this article states, “Of course, if there is no God, there are no absolutes, no right and wrong, no good and evil. Genocide, child sacrifice, racism, rape—all these things are morally neutral, for morality itself is a delusion. Good and evil become nonsense words. Whatever is, is “right.” God’s critics have no grounds for complaint beyond their emotional reflexes: they don’t like what He commands, just as some people don’t like broccoli. Yet the critics try to have it both ways. They borrow the biblical category of absolute right and wrong—something only an absolute God can provide—and then turn around and use it against God Himself. They are like the little girl who must sit on her father’s lap in order to slap his face.”

    i call bullshit! where is the rationale? we do not need a god to define a difference between right and wrong for us. these are ideals we have created based on our own feelings. i feel that these things are wrong, i dont need someone to tell me. you claim that if there was no god, we would not know the difference between right and wrong. we are proof that you are wrong, because we do. i believe the absolute that you speak of, that you claim only an absolute god can provide, is not real, there are no absolutes. obviously each person has the right to create their own absolute, lawful or unlawful, right or wrong. and by the wayeh, i am a bible scholar and yes, biblically, god told the israelites to kill the cannanites and many countless others, that’s his business, and for you to try to twist it like he didnt is wrong, hey you could probably get a good job with the govts…. actually life is a carnival, believe it or not! have fun and stop trying to figure it out or rationalize it to others, just my advice… you ask, “By What Standard Can Atheists Call God Evil?” well, first off by the common opinion standards of the difference between right and wrong, that we have created ourselves, and murdering is such a bad offense that we attributed the need not to do so to the fact that a god said its wrong, so who is he accountable to? is he going to hell or just trying to get us sent there?

  • Avatar
    Jeff Posted September 15, 2015 4:03 pm

    One small thing to keep in mind is, atheists don’t think god is evil. He would have to exist to be evil. I understand that you believe. But we like to see actual scientific proof. I think we’ll all be waiting for a good while. The article before this one, Native American survival skills was a good one. Thanks.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *