Christian Blogger's Controversial Argument on Biblical Genocide and Morality

A Christian blogger has ignited a heated debate by asserting that if one believes God commanded genocide in the Bible, they cannot logically claim that genocide is always a crime against humanity. The blogger draws on the defense used by Otto Ohlendorf during his Nuremberg trial, where Ohlendorf argued that if God commanded genocide, it could not be considered inherently immoral.

Why this matters: This topic matters because it raises fundamental questions about the nature of morality and the authority of religious texts, with implications for how we approach issues of genocide and human rights. If left unexamined, these contradictions could lead to a erosion of moral standards and a lack of accountability for violent acts.

Ohlendorf, a Nazi war criminal, referenced ancient Hebrew scriptures where God is said to have commanded the genocide of the Canaanites. He argued that if the God worshipped by his prosecutors and judges had commanded such actions, then genocide could not be automatically deemed a crime against humanity. This argument, though controversial, raises complex questions about the morality of divine commands.

The blogger emphasizes that this is a matter of logic, stating, '* IF* you believe that God commanded genocide, something completely foreign to the character of God revealed in Jesus, by the way, you cannot *LOGICALLY* claim that genocide is automatically, always a crime against humanity.' This statement highlights the logical inconsistency in holding both beliefs simultaneously.

Additionally, the blogger argues that if one accepts the biblical account of God commanding genocide, they must also be open to the possibility that God could command it again. This notion challenges the belief that genocide is always and inherently wrong, suggesting that divine commands could override this moral stance.

The blogger contrasts this with the character of Jesus, who is considered the perfect revelation of God's nature. The blogger asserts, '*You cannot imagine Jesus commanding his disciples or anyone to slaughter children. *' This highlights a significant theological tension between the Old and New Covenant depictions of God.

Addressing concerns about the authority of the Bible, the blogger references John Calvin's view that Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God on the basis of the 'inner testimony of the Holy Spirit,' rather than its alleged inerrancy. This perspective suggests that the Bible's moral teachings are validated by divine inspiration rather than historical accuracy.

The blogger also recommends reading Dewey M. Beegle's 'Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility,' which challenges the concept of inerrancy, and Clark Pinnock's 'The Scripture Principle,' which argues that inerrancy is not crucial to faith. These works provide a scholarly basis for questioning the infallibility of the biblical texts that describe divine commands for genocide.

To recap, the blogger's argument raises profound questions about the morality and consistency of divine commands in the Bible. By invoking Otto Ohlendorf's Nuremberg defense, the blogger challenges readers to reconsider their views on the inherent immorality of genocide and the nature of divine authority.

Key Takeaways

• A Christian blogger argues that if God commanded genocide in the Bible, it's illogical to claim genocide is always a crime against humanity.
• Otto Ohlendorf's Nuremberg defense referenced biblical genocide, questioning its inherent immorality.
• The blogger highlights the logical inconsistency in holding both beliefs: God commanded genocide and genocide is always wrong.
• The argument challenges the authority of religious texts and raises questions about morality and divine commands.
• The blogger suggests reexamining biblical inerrancy and the nature of divine authority in light of Jesus' character.