Robert Ingersoll- Christians are Better Than Their God

In 1881, famed Atheist and Orator Col. Robert G. Ingersoll said the following in a written debate with a Mr. Black. Even though they've had over 120 years to formulate a rebuttal for this, Christians are (as always) still avoiding rather than answering the charges.   --Mark Smith

The quote is from the following web site: 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/debate/v_black-christianity_1.html 

-------------------------------------------

Without desiring to hurt the feelings of anybody, I propose to give a few reasons for thinking that a few passages, at least, in the Old Testament are the product of a barbarous people.

In all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but it is passionately asserted, that slavery is and always was a hideous crime; that a war of conquest is simply murder; that polygamy is the enslavement of woman, the degradation of man, and the destruction of home; that nothing is more infamous than the slaughter of decrepit men, of helpless women, and of prattling babes; that captured maidens should not be given to soldiers; that wives should not be stoned to death on account of their religious opinions, and that the death penalty ought not to be inflicted for a violation of the Sabbath. We know that there was a time, in the history of almost every nation, when slavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination were regarded as divine institutions; when women were looked upon as beasts of burden, and when, among some people, it was considered the duty of the husband to murder the wife for differing with him on the subject of religion. Nations that entertain these views to-day are regarded as savage, and, probably, with the exception of the South Sea Islanders, the Feejees, some citizens of Delaware, and a few tribes in Central Africa, no human beings can be found degraded enough to agree upon these subjects with the Jehovah of the ancient Jews. The only evidence we have, or can have, that a nation has ceased to be savage is the fact that it has abandoned these doctrines. To every one, except the theologian, it is perfectly easy to account for the mistakes, atrocities, and crimes of the past, by saying that civilization is a slow and painful growth; that the moral perceptions are cultivated through ages of tyranny, of want, of crime, and of heroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the eyes of self and hold in lofty and in equal poise the scales of justice; that conscience is born of suffering; that mercy is the child of the imagination of the power to put oneself in the suffer's place, and that man advances only as he becomes acquainted with his surroundings, with the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take advantage of the forces of nature.

But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to declare that there was a time when slavery was right when men could buy, and women could sell, their babes. He is compelled to insist that there was a time when polygamy was the highest form of virtue; when wars of extermination were waged with the sword of mercy; when religious toleration was a crime, and when death was the just penalty for having expressed an honest thought. He must maintain that Jehovah is just as bad now as he was four thousand years ago, or that he was just as good then as he is now, but that human conditions have so changed that slavery, polygamy, religious persecutions, and wars of conquest are now perfectly devilish. Once they were right once they were commanded by God himself; now, they are prohibited. There has been such a change in the conditions of man that, at the present time, the devil is in favor of slavery, polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That is to say, the devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah held four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained exactly the same, changeless and incapable of change.

We find that other nations beside the Jews had similar laws and ideas; that they believed in and practiced slavery and polygamy, murdered women and children, and exterminated their neighbors to the extent of their power. It is not claimed that they received a revelation. It is admitted that they had no knowledge of the true God. And yet, by a strange coincidence, they practiced the same crimes, of their own motion, that the Jews did by the command of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man can do wrong without a special revelation.

It will hardly be claimed, at this day, that the passages in the Bible upholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution are evidences of the inspiration of that book. Suppose that there had been nothing in the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would any modern Christian suspect that it was not inspired, on account of the omission? Suppose that there had been nothing in the Old Testament but laws in favor of these crimes, would any intelligent Christian now contend that it was the work of the true God? If the devil had inspired a book, will some believer in the doctrine of inspiration tell us in what respect, on the subjects of slavery, polygamy, war, and liberty, it would have differed from some parts of the Old Testament? Suppose that we should now discover a Hindu book of equal antiquity with the Old Testament, containing a defence of slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious persecution, would we regard it as evidence that the writers were inspired by an infinitely wise and merciful God? As most other nations at that time practiced these crimes, and as the Jews would have practiced them all, even if left to themselves, one can hardly see the necessity of any inspired commands upon these subjects. Is there a believer in the Bible who does not wish that God, amid the thunders and lightnings of Sinai, had distinctly said to Moses that man should not own his fellow- man; that women should not sell their babes; that men should be allowed to think and investigate for themselves, and that the sword should never be unsheathed to shed the blood of honest men? Is there a believer in the world, who would not be delighted to find that every one of these infamous passages are interpolations, and that the skirts of God were never reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe? Is there a believer who does not regret that God commanded a husband to stone his wife to death for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon? Surely, the light of experience is enough to tell us that slavery is wrong, that polygamy is infamous, and that murder is not a virtue. No one will now contend that it was worth God's while to impart the information to Moses, or to Joshua, or to anybody else, that the Jewish people might purchase slaves of the heathen, or that it was their duty to exterminate the natives of the Holy Land. The Deists have contended that the Old Testament is too cruel and barbarous to be the work of a wise and loving God. To this, the theologians have replied, that nature is just as cruel; that the earthquake, the volcano, the pestilence and storm, are just as savage as the Jewish God; and to my mind this is a perfect answer.

Suppose that we knew that after "inspired" men had finished the Bible, the devil got possession of it, and wrote a few passages; what part of the sacred Scriptures would Christians now pick out as being probably his work? Which of the following passages would naturally be selected as having been written by the devil "Love thy neighbor as thyself," or "Kill all the males among the little ones, and kill every woman; but all the women children keep alive for yourselves"?


... Most nations, at the time the Old Testament was written, believed in slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious persecution; and it is not wonderful that the book contained nothing contrary to such belief. The fact that it was in exact accord with the morality of its time proves that it was not the product of any being superior to man. "The inspired writers" upheld or established slavery, countenanced polygamy, commanded wars of extermination, and ordered the slaughter of women and babes. In these respects they were precisely like the uninspired savages by whom they were surrounded. They also taught and commanded religious persecution as a duty, and visited the most trivial offenses with the punishment of death. In these particulars they were in exact accord with their barbarian neighbors. They were utterly ignorant of geology and astronomy, and knew no more of what had happened than of what would happen; and, so far as accuracy is concerned, their history and prophecy were about equal; in other words, they were just as ignorant as those who lived and died in nature's night.

Does any Christian believe that if God were to write a book now, he would uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has Jehovah improved? Has infinite mercy become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom intellectually advanced? Will any one claim that the passages upholding slavery have liberated mankind; that we are indebted for our modern homes to the texts that made polygamy a virtue; or that religious liberty found its soil, its light, and rain in the infamous verse wherein the husband is commanded to stone to death the wife for worshiping an unknown god?


 

The Problem of Evil and The Judgments of God

What we have in Isaiah 45:7 is another case of "yes, that's what the Bible SAYS but this is what the Bible MEANS" that Christians like to use. The fact is, yes, the OT does indeed lay the blame on Biblegod for the creation of evil, and rather than try to explain the how's and why's of why many modern translations like to try to hide that fact (better sales???), here is an except to a very good book (online & free) that goes into great detail on the topic. The book is "The Problem of Evil and The Judgments of God" by the Christian author A.E. Knoch, and starting in Chapter 1 he covers Isaiah 45:7 much better than I could:

 

THE basic truth of divine revelation, that all is of God (Rom. 11:36) is so severe a strain on the faith of some of God’s saints, that they instinctively reject it, excusing their unfaith on the ground that it is repulsive to their spiritual natures. They seek to shelve it by making the devil the source of all evil, yet they fail to tell us how the enemy could originate it, unless the power or capacity were given him by his Creator.

We sympathize heartily with the motive of those who shrink from associating evil with God, because we find that their conception of evil and sin is such that they cannot believe God’s plain statements concerning them, but must modify God’s Word to suit their misconception. There is dire need, therefore, of further searching of God’s Word on this subject.
There are many passages in God’s Word which bear out the great truth that all things—the evil as well as the good—find their source in the one and only God, Who alone can originate. Whence are the sufferings of creation, the evil that has perplexed philosophers and confounded the wise? Paul writes that the creation was not subjected to vanity voluntarily. It had no will or choice in the matter. God is subjecting it against its will (Rom.8:21). And the reason is not far to seek. It is only temporary. It is in expectation. Our sufferings will lead to an overwhelming glory, for which these sufferings are essential. Creation is enslaved by corruption with a view to a liberty which can only be enjoyed by that which has tested its opposite.

There is one feature which is common to all opposition to this truth, and that is the failure to distinguish between evil and sin. We have quoted the words of Yahweh Himself, “I . . . create evil” (Isa.45:7), and immediately we are accused of teaching that God is the author of sin. Now we did not write the passage in Isaiah, nor is the prophet responsible. It is the word of Yahweh Himself, and He ought to know. Speaking of the physical creation, He challenges Job,

Where wast thou when I earth’s foundations laid?
Say, if thou know and understandest it!
 

Well might He say to those who deny His creation of evil, “Where were you when evil was created, since you know I had no hand in it?” We admire their zeal for God, but we deplore their denial of His words. What causes the confusion which leads to such dire misunderstanding? It lies largely, we believe, in the lack of discrimination. Instead of the Creator of evil being the Author of sin, we are sure that He cannot sin.

In the languages of revelation evil and sin are clearly distinguished by terms not in any way related to each other. Our translations are only partially consistent, so that there is some excuse for cloudy conceptions on these momentous themes. With very few exceptions (Job 24:21; Psa.41:8; 111:11; Prov.12:21), the Hebrew word rahgag underlies the English rendering evil. A few of its renderings are, break, displease, ill, effect, harm, hurt, mischief, punish, vex, wicked. The adjective adds to these adversity, bad, calamity, distress, grief, grievous, heavy, ill favored, misery, naught, noisome, sad, sore, sorrow, trouble, wretchedness, wrong. It is evident that such diversity of translation will not aid us in forming a correct or concise conception of the real meaning of the term.

What is its exact import? This is best discovered in such passages as Psa.2:9, where it rendered, break, or Dan.2: 40, also translated break. Perhaps our word shatter is its nearest equivalent. In Daniel it is used with the same force as the Chaldee d‘’kak, break in pieces, or pulverize. In the second Psalm it corresponds to nahphatz, which is rendered dash in pieces. In its literal root meaning it describes the effect of iron, the hardest of the common metals, when used to shatter and destroy.
It has no moral bias, such as we usually associate with it. In the passage quoted the evil is done by the hands of the Son of God. He shall deal out evil to the nations with a rod of iron when He comes again (Psa.2:9). The fourth kingdom that will be on earth at the time of the end will deal out evil to the other nations before it, in turn, is the object of His evil work (Dan. 2:40).

The adjective is used of the “ill favored” kine of Pharaoh’s dream (Gen.41:3-27). They were lean, no doubt, but what moral evil were they guilty of? The wonders done in Egypt were great and “sore,” or evil (Deut.6:22). Who doubts that the Lord Himself did this evil? Who would insist that it was morally wrong? The same is true of all the evil brought upon Israel in the land (Joshua 23:15; 1 Kings 9:9; Neh.13:18).

How firmly immorality is associated with evil by theologians is evident from their desire to shield God from all association with it. Our common translation quite correctly states that an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled Saul (1 Sam.16:14). Newberry changes this, in his margin, to a sad spirit! This literally shows the “sad” effect of the unfounded fallacy that evil is, in itself, tainted with sin. The evil spirit was not an emissary of Satan, but of God. Our translators have tried to hide this at times, as when, speaking of the waters of Jericho, they say “the water is naught” (2 Kings 2:19). It was evil.
Job had learned this simple lesson long before his testing. In answer to his wife’s reflection on God, he replied “What? Shall we receive good from the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” We can almost hear someone shout “Blasphemy!” when they read this. But the divine comment is, “In all this did not Job sin with his lips” (Job 2: 10). “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam.3:38).

The neutral character of evil is evident when both words are used together. Zimri “sinned in doing evil” (1 Kings 16:19). From this we may freely infer that evil is not necessarily sin.

The claim has been repeatedly made that, since evil is contrasted with peace, rather than good, it denotes calamity rather than “moral” evil. This method of discovering the meaning of a word is a good one, but, in this case, suffers from unskillful use. First we must be sure of the significance of the contrastive term. Then we must determine its real opposite. Moreover we must not base our conclusion on a solitary text, but upon all available occurrences. And, above all, we must not allow one instance to completely overrule the plain teaching of a multitude of others. All of these precautions are thrown to the winds when evil is denied to “moral” evil because it is the opposite of peace. “Peace,” in Hebrew, has a much wider range than in English. “Calamity” is not its antonym, even in English. Evil is seldom contrasted with peace, but often with “good,” which, it is allowed by all, gives it a universal range, to include all species of evil.

While evil and peace are in contrast a few times, evil and good are set over against each other often. The following are most of the occurrences:

Gen.2:9,17; 3:5,22; 24:50; 31:24,29; 44:4; Lev.27:10,12,14, 33; Num.13:19; 24:13; Deut.1:39; 30:15; 1 Sam.25:21; 2 Sam.13:22; 14:17; 19:35 (36); 1 Kings 3:9; 22:8,18; 2 Chron.18:7,17; Job 2: 10; Psa.34:14 (15); 35:12; 37:27; 38:20 (21); 52:3 (5); 109:5; Prov.14:19; 17:13; Ecc.12:14; Isa.5:20; Jer.18:20; 42:6; Lam.3:38; Amos 5:15; Micah 3:2.
 

If God intends us to understand “moral” evil when it is contrasted with “good,” here is evidence sufficient for anyone.
We are not trying to prove that God creates “moral” evil, but that the distinction is unfounded and futile. The word evil has no “moral” bias. It may or may not be wrong. Is it “moral” evil in the following passages, where it is coupled with good! “Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of Yahweh our God” (Jer.42:6). Moral evil is sin, and God does not demand that His people sin. Much will be gained if the term “moral” be discarded in this discussion, and “moral evil” be given its true name, sin.

Calamity usually heads the catalogue of evils that are not “moral.” Yet it is impossible to consider a single calamity which has not a moral effect. Take the recent Japanese earthquake. No one doubts that it was a divine infliction. And who can doubt its moral effect? Japan cannot strike back at God. If the destruction had been occasioned by some other nation, however, it would be considered one of the greatest wrongs ever perpetrated against a people. It was much worse than anything done in the great war, for they were given no warning and no chance to defend themselves. So that, in reality, the proposed distinction is not between various classes of evil, but that which is from the hand of God and that which is from the hand of man.

Perhaps the most notable and striking dissimilarity in the usage of evil and sin lies in their relation to sacrifice. Indeed, that blurred idea, which struggles so unsuccessfully to crystallize in such unscriptural expressions as “moral evil,” may be clearly conveyed in the question, Does evil require a sacrifice? A careful consideration of the hundreds of passages in which it occurs will lead to the startling conviction that it is never connected with the altar and the blood. The many occasions where God is said to do evil are, of course, as righteous and holy as all His acts must ever be. In the hundreds of cases where men do evil, the presumption is that the evil is also sin and this is pointed out on rare occasions (1 Kings 16:19). Nevertheless we have found no passage in which the evil, as such, is to be covered by sacrifice.

In convincing contrast to this, the student who will go over all the passages in which sin occurs, will find sacrifice and sin such close companions, that in scores of cases, in the feminine form, the word sin has been rendered sin offering. In Leviticus, evil is mentioned scarcely half a dozen times, and then mostly in the latter part, and never in connection with the sacrifices, while sin (including the rendering sin offering occurs over a hundred times.

Never is there the slightest hint that evil must be expiated by an offering. This is necessary only when it is sinful. A striking sentence is found in the midst of one of the definitions of the so-called trespass or guilt offering—the very place where we would expect to see evil condemned. “If a soul swear pronouncing with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatsoever it be . . . then he shall be guilty . . . ” (Lev.5:4).

Until not only the true significance, but the moral bias of our vocabulary agrees with the divine usage, we shall not be able to fathom such truths as the origin of evil and the source of sin. We have an innate repugnance, an instinctive abhorrence of any suggestion which seems to associate sin with God. So long as we think of evil as essentially sin the door is barred to an understanding of its introduction into the universe.

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, usually uses one of two different Greek words in rendering the Hebrew for evil. One is the element -kak- and its derivatives, which we render EVIL, and the common text translates evil, wicked, harm, ill, bad, vex, hurt, etc. This corresponds closely with the Hebrew in its usage. The other word is -ponˆr-, literally MISERY-GUSH, or wicked. This is usually translated evil, wicked, iniquity, etc. It carries with it a moral taint. Its contexts, associated with the word evil, have given the word the moral bias which has gradually spread until it seems to taint the acts of Yahweh Himself.

We may be sure, then, that evil, as spoken of in the Scriptures, is an act which shatters and demolishes and brings with it a train of trouble and distress. But it is neither right nor wrong in itself. This leads us to consider the subject of sin.
 

http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheProblemOfEvil/evil001.html

Now back to your email...