The skeptic takes a radically new approach to the debate resolution: It is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Are you quoting as authority, the same William Farley that was removed from his position as chaplin, by the US Armed Forces? For being a little too blunt and uncharitable, about the wonders of a wrathful God?

Many people other than the recently-defrocked Farley, feel that the rather severe Old Testament God moderated himself, with Jesus; who “fulfilled” the old severe “law”s of God, with a gentler “new covenant.” One that did not demand the death penalty for cooking food on a Sabbath for example. Or for heresy.

Do you, Mr. Truth – or better said, Mr. “Divides” ? – still support the wrathful God that … enforces a death penalty, or executes people, for cooking on a Sunday? Or for committing adultry? Or for say, heresy? Misrepresenting God?

Are you really entirely comfortable with that? Would you like to be “judge”d by the same standards yourself, that you advocate for others? As Paul suggested you might be?

Keep in mind, you are supporting the Death penalties of God? Since you support that view of God … would you be equally enthusiastic about asking for those standards to be applied to you, yourself?

Or mightn’t it be better, to support the New Testament idea? Of a kind, gentle Jesus?

“Wrath is a virtue, not an evil. A God who does not visit sin with wrath cannot be good.” –William Farley”

Do Emergers understand this?

Eg., Minnow on another thread: “I personally see it as new wrapping for the same old controlling spirit., leagalism, and manipulation. The other emergers are more interested in practice, being hands and feet in a hurting world and letting that world know God loves it. They are also more willing to see God and good in unusual places.”

Christopher Wright’s book *The God I Don’t Understand* (Zondervan) offers some excellent insights regarding say a God who gets angry at sin. He mentions Yale theologian Miroslav Volf, who grew up in the former Yugoslavia and came to see his country torn apart by warfare, ethnic cleansing, and “man’s inhumanity to man,” as Francis Schaeffer put it. Before this experience, he had found it difficult to believe in an angry God who judges. But when he saw the atrocities committed, he not only responded with righteous anger at injustice; he also realized that he couldn’t worship a God who doesn’t get angry at it.

One question raised above was on why God wants humans to worship him. (I address this in *When God Goes to Starbucks*, but here’s the shortened version!) To worship God is to acknowledge God for who he is—the Creator who has designed us to find joy and contentment in a relationship with him. The triune God is intrinsically other-centered, and God’s calling on us to acknowledge his centrality and claim upon our lives is simply a call for all to live in touch with reality rather than out of touch with it. Idolatry, which is an attempt to give central place to something finite/created, which is a guaranteed failure and is utterly out of touch with reality. The warning against idolatry is for our good—like a parent’s insisting that his children avoid drugs or harmful company.

John C.T., you asked about where to look for more material on divine hiddenness and role of the human will. Check out Paul K. Moser’s Idolanon website (http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/Idolanon.html), which has some excellent articles and bibliography. Check out the essay for starters, “Why Isn’t God More Obvious?”

Phil McCheddar, I’m sure it’s no problem to utilize the questions I posted. I’ve simply summarized a number of Moser’s points in the form of questions.

Rayner, I think that we have excellent evidence for God’s existence, which I note in my *Loving Wisdom*. There I discuss how the universe’s beginning from nothing a finite time ago, its amazing fine-tuning for life, the existence of consciousness, the existence of human rights/dignity/worth, the existence of free will and moral responsibility, the existence of rationality, the existence of beauty—these are features of reality that are difficult to account for if some God-like being does not exist. Indeed, many naturalists themselves acknowledge the difficulty of accounting for these features of reality naturalistically.

In addition to all of this, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is quite strong. I’ve edited three books on the subject, and with each one I have come away more impressed at the strong foundations there are for affirming Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Check out Gary Habermas/Michael Licona, *The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus* (Kregel).

I think that’s it for now. As it’s already time for a new post, I don’t know that I’ll get back to this present one, but I’ll do my best.

Regarding the question of OT ethics, in my writings I’ve tried to grapple with issues such as slavery, “strange” and “harsh” laws, God’s jealousy/anger, and so on. (You can check out *That’s Just Your Interpretation*, *When God Goes to Starbucks*, and *How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?*) My next blog post (which should be up this weekend) is on the question of the Canaanites; it’s an article from the next issue of Philosophia Christi. Perhaps you’ll find some helpful insights there. In the OT we see God dealing with a chosen people who are strongly influenced by fallen social and religious structures, and God meets Israel where they are and seeks to bring incremental changes that are in improvement over other ancient Near East cultures but yet not reflecting an ideal arrangement. So it’s not a matter of God’s arbitrarily changing his mind. After all, we do read of God’s ideals set forth in Genesis 1:27-28 (the image of God in humans) and 2:24 (monogamous, lifelong marriage)—which has implications regarding the subversion of slavery, racism, polygamy, and much more. Jesus himself said that Moses permitted divorce—and, by implication, lots of other things—because of the hardness of human hearts (Matthew 19:8)—not because this was God’s ideal.

Furthermore, the OT is anticipating a new covenant and a new way of dealing with the emerging interethnic community (again, anticipated in the OT): the true Israel comprised now of both Jews and Gentiles. The OT acknowledges a planned obsolescence that will give way to something substantial. (In terms of the alleged misuse of the OT by NT writers, check out the final chapter of my book *That’s Just Your Interpretation.*)

“The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”

By the way, I’m a cat person too.

The new covenant provides the one perfect sacrifice for the sin of the world. There is no more need for the blood of sheep and bulls to pay for our rebellion. Whether that is gentler or not I don’t know.

God commands our service, as He should. We are twice bought, once by His creation, and the second by His redemption, so bond slaves we are.

Phil, that is what they call the genetic fallacy. There is a God (or is no God) regardless of what we want the case to be. However a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence, the fact of our existence, the Resurrection etc, must accept at least the possibility of Christianity being correct.

Nagel’s belief that there is no God is not made false because he wishes it were true. I find atheistic answers to questions of our existence unsatisfactory at best, and incoherent at worst.

Though to be sure, perhaps that hope was realized, in the “new covenant”; that presented a kinder gentler update, Jesus. Whose emphasis on forgiveness, took the edge off much of this?