“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31: 15-18

Most analytic varieties of atheism seem committed to experience, science, and reason as foundations of rational belief. Consider John Shook’s definition of Naturalism, as published on Naturalisms.org:

Naturalism is usually defined most briefly as the philosophical conclusion that the only reality is nature, as gradually discovered by our intelligence using the tools of experience, reason, and science.

As a Christian theist, I’m happily inclined to agree with experience, science, and reason (ESR) as foundations of rationality; ironically, were I an atheist, I might not so eagerly consent—continental philosophy beckons—but that’s another post. For present purposes, Quixote’s wondering why a perennial objection against Christian theism, a subset of the problem of evil which levies charges of wrongdoing against God Himself for ordering genocide, appears to be currently in the forefront of many atheists’s minds.

It’s all over the atheosphere in one form or another. Let’s take a brief look at the genocidal God objection (GGO) in the light of experience, science, and reason.

As far as I know, no one has direct experience of God committing genocide. I’ve never seen Him do it. I think it’s safe to assume no reader or commenter has either. If the objector is willing to grant the accounts of the Old Testament as historical, I say bravo. Let’s admit them as testimonial evidence. But once they’re admitted, let’s not de-admit them once we move on to other topics. At any rate, this does not represent direct experience and does not provide a rational foundation by means of direct experience for or against GGO under ESR.

Science appears to be of no assistance either. We do not appear to have an instrument or experiment capable of measuring the GGO, nor has science provided us with a time machine whereby we might directly observe this phenomenon.

What about reason? This must be the pillar of tripartite naturalistic thought the objection purportedly rests upon. But does it? Is this a logical objection?

I submit that it is not. This objection rests upon emotionalism. It’s an emotional plea, and as such, seems strange coming from the keyboards of atheists. Allow me to explain.

Christian doctrine clearly teaches that humankind in its entirety, save one notable exception, is deserving of death as a penalty for sin. Moreover, Christianity teaches that a holy and righteous God is justified in executing this judgment. From these two premises, and given Christian doctrine as true, logic requires deductively that God is not guilty of injustice, even to the extent of genocide, or in judgment in the form of a worldwide deluge:

P1 Sinners are deserving of judgment, including death.

P2 All humans are sinners.

P3 A righteous, morally blameless judge is justified in delivering judgment to sinners, including death.

P4 God is a righteous, morally blameless judge.

Therefore, God is justified in delivering judgment to sinners, including death.

It’s nearly tautological: If they deserve it, they deserve it. The logic appears impeccable, so given the truth of the premises, the conclusion necessarily follows. Here’s the point then: given the assumptions of Christian doctrine as revealed in the Bible, there’s no logical objection to God ordering genocide, and any rational observer is compelled by formal logic to acknowledge this conclusion, all emotionality aside. Considered purely from within the Christian worldview, the GGO fails logically, and is thus a purely emotional objection, one that does not square with experience, science, and reason.

I fully understand, however, that the Christian worldview is not the only game in town. Those of you who wish to argue that humans are not sinners who deserve death can do so, and create logical syllogisms that prove that the God of the Bible is a homicidal maniac. Fair enough, but that is not the objection I’m treating in this post. This post treats the objection that even from within the Christian’s own doctrine and holy book, God is a homicidal maniac. This is conclusively demonstrated above to be an emotional response, not a logical one, or at best a logical one founded on premises considered false by Christians. Hence, the notion that the Biblical accounts taken in isolation prove God morally culpable for genocide should be rejected by all atheists who wish to rely on experience, science, and reason to influence belief. We can argue later about whether Christianity is true, whether people are actually deserving of death and judgment, and so on, but let’s first settle the question of whether Christianity is internally consistent with regard to the GGO. I submit that it is.

I realize that even within my own argument above I need to address the issues of children, animals, and the means by which God delivers judgment to support the premises of this argument. I intend to do so in subsequent posts on this topic. Furthermore, it remains unexplicated above how God’s acts of ordering genocide are in actuality measures of grace and lovingness on his part—also reserved for a future post.

Now, let’s not shy away from the skeptic’s claim that Christianity is a bloody religion. Let’s not act as though their claim does not have merit. It does…it’s right there in our holy book. Christianity is a bloody religion that has as its cornerstone–its foundation–a bloody act performed by God through the actions of human agents: the crucifixion of Christ. Christian, this is the basis of your atonement: a blood sacrifice, given once and for all for your sin. If you can’t accept it, you can’t be a Christian.

Take a look around and ask yourself if this is a bloody world we live in. Clearly, it is, and non-bloody religions seem out of place in a bloody world, like a man trying to breathe water or a woman that only notices certain aspects of her face in a mirror. Only a bloody religion can make sense of a bloody world–that, or there’s no meaning to the world at all.

“And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”

King Richard III (I, iii)

Perhaps I should spend less time involved with Internet discussions. There’s something to be said and learned with respect to the stewardship of time. Nevertheless, I’ve invested the time lately, for good, ill, or both, in discussions with a variety of Christians and non-Christians. There’s a disquieting thread woven through the strands of most every discussion, especially when the topic at hand has religious or spiritual application or import. There’s a universal clothed villainy afoot. It’s systemic, foundational, inherent…

The villainy is the sin nature we inherit from Adam, for In Adam we sinned all.Before I sound too preachy, no non-pelagian Christian–which is simply longhand for all Christians–should struggle to acknowledge the universality of the sin nature. The Bible is overtly clear on this point, and a knowledge of sin is the entry point for Christianity. The Christian church is a unique institution: you’re required to be rotten as a prerequisite for membership. Original sin provides the Christian’s dual understanding of the brotherhood of man, it and creation in the image of God.

So far, so good. However, the problem arises when (read as when, not if) we clothe our villainy. Involve yourself in any Christian forum and see how long it takes to detect the presence of the sinful nature, both in yourself and in others. The insincerities, the taunts, the refusal to cross party lines and admit an opponent’s strengths, the know-it-all-ness, the veiled ridicule, or any other of a truckload of sins. Better yet, just take note of your own thoughts in connection with your Christian brethren. Am I the only one who has such thoughts? I doubt it…The heart is deceitful above all things. Who may trust it?

And yet our villainy is so easily clothed by the anonymity of the Internet. It’s easy enough to fool ourselves, deceiving ourselves that we have no sin. God forbid. May I ever enter church as the tax collector and not the Pharisee.

But I do it, and so do you. It’s foolish. I might as well put a blonde wig on my Great Dane and take her out on a date, daring anyone to tell me she’s a dog. Nonetheless, that’s what we do. We dress up our sin nature and pass it off to the world as inner beauty. O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

In speaking with non-Christians, my experience is that the sin nature represents one of the top two or three stumbling blocks to reasonable communication with the modern non-Christian. The presuppositions from both sides concerning the inner nature of humans are so vastly disparate that it presents an immediate roadblock to discussion about God.  There was presumably a time when non-Christians recognized the sinful nature, but that time is by and large a thing of the past. Today’s non-Christian is a flasher; his villainy is clothed, but he’ll be happy to open his trench coat at any time, because, in his mind, there’s nothing to hide.

Most disturbingly, we as Christians, as King Richards, clothe our villainy with odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ.I tangled recently with some holiness folks preaching sinless perfection. While I appreciate the call and emphasis on living a good Christian life, to say that we are perfect in our sinlessness is the height of clothing our villainy. Unless, of course, we think we are Christ himself, or better than the Apostle Paul:

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. ¹⁵For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. ¹⁶If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. ¹⁷Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. ¹⁸For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. ¹⁹For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. ²⁰Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. ²¹I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.²²For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: ²³But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. ²⁴O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? ²⁵I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Naturally, the forum was overflowing with clothed villainy, and it pains me to think that Christ was watching his followers represent him so. Yes, we so often seem the saint, when most we play the devil. May God have mercy upon us all, giving thanks to Him for 1 John 1:9, and the fact that Romans 8 follows Romans 7.