Is God a Moral Monster? Paul Copan

Quotes from the book 'is God a moral monster?' 

Introduction:

Israel - expressing an orthodox view of Israel:

unlike national Israel, God's new people - the new and true Israel - are an interethnic church with a heavenly citizenship.

the need for a faith that isn't remote:

Christ's disciples are to live out God's kingdom values, being salt and light and doers of good. The Christian faith has this-worldly implications. If it doesn't, it's not Christian; rather, it's a detached gnosticism that ignores culture and ultimately denies reality.

Chapter 1: Who are the Neo-Atheists?

The state of America's religious perspectives:

According to Gallup polls, 4% of American were atheists back in 2007 - the same percentage as in 1944! Rumours of God's death have been greatly exaggerated. And when we look at the non-Western world, people are becoming Christians in record numbers. The Christian faith is the fastest-growing movement around, often accompanied by signs and wonders, as Penn State historian Philip Jenkins has ably documented  

A good line about the Neo-Atheists's theology and approach to debate:

Michael Novak: there's an odd defensiveness about all these books - as though they were a sign not of victory but of desperation

Christians are often to blame, but...

Jesus shouldn't be blamed because of the abuses of his professed followers.

A swipe at Dawkins:

a quick check of Dawkins's documentation reveals a lot more time spent on Google than at Oxford University's Bodleian Library

and from Rodney Stark:

"To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood"

Daniel Dennett is also a selective source quoter. Quoting from David Hume and celebrating his atheism but ignoring the next line in which Hume implies a sympathy toward faith:

"Happily the first question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least, the clearest, solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and religion.'

But the New Atheists never accept any of the blame laid at their door for things done in the name of atheism or as a result of atheistic philosophy:

The New Atheists aren't willing to own up to atrocities committed in the name of atheism by Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Zedong, yet they expect Christians to own up to all barbarous acts performed in Jesus's name.

Another example...

What about serial murderer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer? Dahmer reasoned, 'If it all happens naturalistically, what's the need for a God? Can't I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself." He wondered, if there's no God and we all just came 'from the slime,' then 'what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges?'

The reverse side of the coin is (and I've often had atheists use this one):

The New Atheists refuse (or show great reluctance) to acknowledge the profound, well-documented positive influence of Christian faith in the world. This list of contributions includes preserving literature, advancing education, laying the foundations of modern science, cultivating art and music, promoting human rights and providing better working conditions for persons, and overthrowing slavery. These contributions are acknowledged by atheists and theists alike. 

Richard Dawkins' oft quoted comment about the God of the OT from the God Delusion:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. 

Christopher Hitchens also chimes in with:

The Old Testament contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slaver, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human animals. And the Ten Commandments are proof that religions is manmade. For one thing, you don't need God to tell you that murder is wrong; this information is available to all humans.

Chapter 3: God's appetite for praise and sacrifice
divine arrogance or humility? 

He asks the question

so does God have an unhealthy self-preoccupation? Do our atheist friends have a point? Not on this one. On closer inspection, God turns out to be a humble, self-giving, other-centred Being.

Commenting on the creation of mankind as evidence of God's graciousness:

When God created human beings, he uniquely equipped them for two roles, as the early chapters of Genesis suggest. The first is our kingly role: god endowed us to share in ruling the creation with him. The second is our priestly role of relating to ('walking with') God and orienting our lives around him. Being made in God's image as priest-kings brings with it the ability to relate to God, to think rationally, to make moral decisions, to express creativity, and (with God) to care for and wisely harness creation. This is privilege, not bondage! 

The 'religious gene'

The inventor Thomas Edison said that humans are 'incurably religious.'

The need for more than purely physical:

The physical domain doesn't contain the source of coherence, order, morality, meaning, and guidance for life. Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings;

What of God's command to worship?

Why does God insist that we worship him? For the same reason that parents tell their young children to stay away from fire or speeding cars. God doesn't want humans to detach themselves from ultimate reality, which only ends up harming us.

God's calling for our worship isn't a manifestation of pride - of false, overinflated views of himself. The call to worship means inclusion in the life of God. Worship expresses an awareness of God's - and thus our - proper place in the order of things, and it also transforms us into what we were designed to be.

Actually in the Bible, God isn't the one commanding us to praise him. Typically, fellow creatures are spontaneously calling on one another to do so - to recognise God's greatness and worth-ship. Praise naturally flows from - and completes - the creature's enjoyment of God.

Appropriate rewards quote by C.S. Lewis; how joy and pleasure is the appropriate reward for and therefore motive for seeking God:

Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money. But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not mercenary for desiring it... Those who have attained everlasting life in the vision of God know very well that is is no mere bribe, but the very consummation of their earthly discipleship.

A muslim asks: why do you wear a cross around your neck?'

Once a muslim expressed to me his disbelief and even scorn at the idea of Christians wearing cross: 'How can Christians wear with pride the instryment of torture and humiliation? If your brother were killed in an electric chair, would you wear an electric chair around your neck?' I replied that it depends: 'if my brother happened to be Jesus of Nazareth and his death in an electric chair brought about my salvation and was the means by which evil was defeated and creation renewed then he would have transformed a symbol of shame and punishment into something glorious.'

Chapter 4: God's jealousy

TV icon Oprah Winfrey said that she was turned off to the Christian faith when she heard a preacher affirm that God is jealous.

When the word 'jealous' is used in scripture it's within the context of idolatry and false worship. When we choose this-worldly pursuits over our relationship with God, we engage in spiritual adultery, which provokes Go's righteous jealousy.

Here's a helpful prod of secular and often Christian contemporary culture. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is famous for giving us the 'chief end of man' which we're told is: to glorify God and enjoy him forever:

For many in the west (including professing Christians), the chief goal of many individuals is 'to further my interests and to enjoy myself forever.' Or if God exists, then the Catechism's answer is subconsciously revised to this: 'The chief end of God is to make me as comfortable and pain-free as possible.'

A wife who doesn't get jealous and angry when another woman is flirting with her husband isn't really  all that committed to the marriage wthout the potential for jealousy when an intruder threatens isn't much of a marriage. Outrage, pain, anguish - these are the appropriate responses to such a deep violation. God isn't some abstract entity or impersonal principle, as Dawkins seems to think he should be. He is an engaging, relational God who attaches himself to humans.

Chapter 5: Child Abuse and Bullying?

The law of Moses condemned child abuse and it was one of the things God judged the Canaanites for.

One biblical scholar calls this 'a monstrous test.'

God appear to use his authority to violate basic moral standards. God seems to be a relativs of sorts.

Bigger picture: Israel, Abraham & Moses

One argument that seems to hold true is that much of the Pentateuch contrasts Abraham with Moses. Abraham is seen as the man who (despite not having the law) trusted God and was commended for his faith. Moses on the other hand is an example in contrast to this. His faith failed him (despite having God's law). Psalm 106:32-33 reinforces this presentation of Moses. Num. 20:12 is addressed to both Moses and Aaron. Moses spoke rashly and didn't believe God.

Exodus 20:20 Moses instructs Israel with words matched in the trial of Abraham and Isaac: God has come to 'test' you in order that the 'fear' of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.'

Genesis 12:1 - God tells Abraham to 'go' [lek-leka] 'to the land' ['el-'erets]. Remarkable act of trust based on the promise that God would make his descendants great.
Genesis 22:2 - God tells Abraham to 'go' [lek-leka] follow by the familiar sounding ['el'ha'aarets] to the region/land of Moriah.

Bells would be going off in Abraham's head. God is clearly reminding him of his promise of blessing even while he's being commanded to do what seems to be utterly opposed to that promise.

In 12. God promises to make his descendants as numerous as the stars. Here in 22:17 he confirms that promise. Genesis makes a connection between Abraham's call (12) and his subsequent obedience (22).

Abraham had left his home and given us his past for the sake of God's promise. Now he was being asked if he would trust God by apparently surrendering his future as well. Everything Abraham ever hoped for was tied up in this son of promise.

Hagar & Ishmael:

At Isaac's weaning feast Ishmael and Hagar mocked the child. Sarah insisted that they both be sent away again. Abraham had a dilemma and had to again entrust the future to God. God has promised that Ishmael would be a great nation one day and that God would greatly multiply his descendents. And so Abraham 'rose early in the morning' (21:14) just as he would do with Isaac (22:3) and sent them both away.

All he could do was trust God's promises and obey. Somehow God had to come through! Abraham's obedience, we now see, was carried out in the context of his awareness of God's earlier deliverance of Ishmael and of God's act of providing the miracle child of promise through Sarah.

Genesis 22:

Those are the surrounding biblical texts. Both the larger context of Moses and the narrower context of Hagar and Ishmael.

Four things about God's character emerge:

1) we are tipped off first that God is testing Abraham. God doesn't intend for Isaac to be sacrificed. 
2) God's directive is best translated 'please take your son.' or as another scholar puts it, 'take, I beg of you, your only son.' This sort of command is rare.
3) God reminds Abraham of his covenant 'your only son Isaac.'
4) The land of Moriah is derived from the Hebrew word ra'ah 'provide, see, show.' Hagar uses the same word 'you are the God who sees' when relaying to Abraham how God rescued her.

In the above ways we see God's faithful tenderness cushioning what is an otherwise startling and harsh command. It's as though God is saying: I'm testing your obedience and allegiance. You don't understand, but n light of all I've done and said to you, trust me. Not even death can nullify the promise I've made.'

We can't separate God's promise in Genesis 12 and 17 from God's gentle command in Genesis 22.

Philosophical reflections

If God commands a person to do something, they should do it.
Taking innocent life isn't always immoral: eg eptopic pregnancy or suicide bomber
Taking an innocent life is only immoral in a world where people don't come back from the dead . God had made promises to Abraham and so Abraham saw that God is a God who acts in history and is able to make good on those promises, therefore it isn't immoral for Abraham to obey God.

Jesus the second-Isaac

God asks Abraham to do something that he is willing to do himself. God gave 'his only' sonjust as Abraham did. Abraham did it as a demonstration of his faithfulness to God. God did it as a demonstration of his faithfulness to us.

So deep is God's love for us that the Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance was willing to go so far as to say that 'God loves us more than he loves himself.'

Dawkins considers this command as tantamount to 'child abuse and bullying.'