New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 4, 2012

Atheism, Education, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

TBS: You have just returned from a very successful tour of the U.K., where you participated in nearly a dozen lectures and debates. Even so, the most famous atheist you were to debate—evolutionary biologist and bestselling author, Richard Dawkins—was a no-show. In a public statement that got a lot of web play, Dawkins claimed he did not want to debate with you because you refuse to distance yourself from God, who in the Book of Deuteronomy orders the destruction of the Canaanites, which Dawkins termed “genocide.” In hindsight, what do you make of this episode?

WLC: Well, in hindsight I have to say that Dawkins’ attacks in The Guardian and elsewhere turned out to be the best publicity for the event at the Sheldonian Theatre [at Oxford University—ed.] that we could have possibly made up! [vid] His reaction was so counterproductive, from his point of view. Other atheists in the blogosphere and also in The Guardian roundly condemned him for what were clearly manufactured pseudo-reasons for not participating in the debate with me. So the whole fiasco just proved to be a boon to the public profile of the lecture that I gave in the Sheldonian Theatre, which was responded to by three other Oxford faculty, who apparently didn’t share Richard Dawkins’ reservations about being on the platform with me. So it really was very helpful to our outreach!

(Wouldn’t debate? It wasn’t about the elevator. Yes, he said it was about this. More likely, some say, about this. More coffee, please.)

Comments

Onlookers: For further record (with particular notice to the pseudonymous objector using the web handle "Larry Tanner") Some time ago, I noted that the accusation that the God of the OT is a bronze age tribal deity and moral monster and that his followers are supporters of genocide etc is at least by implication anti-semitic. Rabbi Boteach, responding to the late Christopher Hitchens, one of the leading New Atheism Advocate, upgrades that to actual, not just implied or potential. Let me excerpt the section of the NCSTS unit on The Sins of Christendom that deals with this issue: _______________ >> we may examine leading new atheist and multiply best-selling author, professor Richard Dawkins' notorious quote as he begins his attack on what he terms "the God Hypothesis," in his best-selling book, The God Delusion (2006): Dawkins, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] 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 . . . ” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press, 2006, 31. Cf. Lennox- Dawkins debate, here. For a quick initial response to this sort of rhetoric, cf. CARM here and JPH of Tektonics here, here, here and here. Also cf. Vox Day's short book length critique of the new Atheists in a free to download format here. (Available from Amazon here.)] The rebellion-rooted anger at God, the dismissal as "fiction[al]," the demonised strawman caricature, the multiple inaccuracies practically leap out. At least, to the reasonably informed reader who knows the balance of the Biblical and OT teachings and records on the good and just God who loves, is concerned, and therefore redeems, forgives, often relents even on the brink of destructive judgement (once there is penitence), and as a rule rescues a remnant -- whether a Noah and family, or a Rahab, or even the brands plucked from burning who save themselves from an untoward generation in the New Testament -- even in the midst of destructive judgement. Given the rising intensity of especially the poisonous and polarising snide insinuations deeply embedded in the above -- i: that Bible-believing Christians ii: [and by probably unrecognised implication (so poisonous is this) Jews . . . this is the OT and "the God of the OT" Dawkins would stigmatise is the God of Israel . . . ] iii: are held to be followers of an imaginary, barbarous bronze-age tribal deity and so iv: are would-be theocratic tyrants, terrorists and v: supporters of racially-tinged genocide -- . . . the resulting rising tide of outright hostility or even hate, is predictable, but ill-warranted. Instead, we should pause and notice how a more responsible and more widely informed reading would approach troubling texts . . . . a: Instead of the sort of incendiary rhetoric cited above, a responsible view would have first highlighted that: our civilisation, historically, has had a strong respect for life, for justice and for protecting innocent life shaped by a moral climate deeply influenced by its Judaeo-Christian, biblical foundations. b: In that light, many people in our civilisation, Christians and otherwise, struggle with the apparent meanings of instructions given to the Israelites during the Canaanite conquest. c: This conquest is presented as a divine judgement of seven nations that — after 400 years of warnings dating to Abraham and the exemplary judgement from heaven against Sodom and Gomorrah — had defiantly filled up the cup of divine wrath [and as foreshadowing a similar fate hovering over Israel (and by extension other nations) if it too would forget and utterly rebel against God]; and there are other similar cases. d: There are different final views taken on these texts, but none -- including the dismissive -- are without fairly serious difficulties of one form or another.
(NB: This is part of why these passages, across the centuries, have deeply troubled many concerned readers. [Cf recent discussions accessible online: Craig, Woods, Chin, Wade, Copan, Miller. (Also, cf. Boteach here and here, as well as Torley here, for Jewish views and wider issues.) Craig in particular emphasises that the underlying target of the accusation is to undermine confidence in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures and their teachings, especially where such teachings cut across modern secularist views. Accordingly, it is appropriate to draw attention to the grounds for basic confidence in those scriptures (even in the face of difficulties or even points of perplexity), as are discussed here in Unit 2 above. Similarly, we need to pause reflect very carefully and soberly on the delicate and dangerous lessons taught by the history of total warfare -- especially the case of the war with Hitler -- and the related issue of which of great evils before us is lesser in a terrible life and death struggle. If we have not put ourselves in the shoes of a Churchill, or a Roosevelt, or a Truman having to make decisions about the use of heavy bombers against enemy cities in the face of the realistic alternatives before them, we are in no position to make glib, superciliously dismissive rhetorical "gotcha" pronouncements on this sort of matter. In short, our conclusions must be born of pain, and of painful, heart-tearing moral struggle in light of knowing the sort of decisions great and rightly respected statesmen have had to make in the face of overwhelming evil, within living memory. And, it would not hurt to put ourselves in the shoes of a Marshall Petain at Verdun in 1916, with the survival of France on the line, standing by to watch men marching past to the front, knowing that he was sending these very men to the slaughter by the tens of thousands, to hold the line against the overwhelming German attacks. His words: "my heart lurched . . ." For, if your heart has not lurched, deeply and painfully wounded, you are not ready to answer this question with the right understanding and in the right spirit.])
e: Here, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach speaks, soberingly, from a heart that has lurched like that. He wrote in reply to the recent accusation of New Atheism spokesman, the late Christopher Hitchens, that "Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs" in order to convert the West Bank zone of Judaea and Samaria into a radical Jewish theocracy, as follows:
. . . any Rabbi who was to praise a Jewish murderer would be fired from his post and banished from his community. The Torah is clear: 'Thou may not murder' (Exodus 20) and 'Thou shalt not take revenge' (Leviticus 19). Second, no Biblical story of massacre, which is a tale and not a law, could ever be used to override the most central prohibition of the Ten Commandments and Biblical morality. Murder is the single greatest offense against the Creator of all life and no Jew would ever use a Biblical narrative of war or slaughter as something that ought to be emulated. In our time Churchill and Roosevelt, both universally regarded as moral leaders and outstanding men, ordered the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants in the Second World War through the carpet- bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and Tokyo. Truman would take it further by ordering the atomic holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How did men who are today regarded as righteous statesmen order such atrocities? They were of the opinion that only total war could end Nazi tyranny and Japanese imperial aggression. They did it in the name of saving life. Which is of course not to excuse their actions but rather to understand them in the context of the mitigating circumstances of the time. I do not know why Moses would have ordered any such slaughter even in the context of war. But I do know that the same Bible who relates the story also expressly forbids even the thought of such bloodshed ever being repeated.
(In short the antisemitism concern raised above is not just theoretical, for here we see a case of outright blood libel from one of the top several New Atheist spokesmen that takes advantage of high feelings on the admittedly thorny Arab-Israeli conflict, to slip in the poisoned rhetorical knife. So, it was entirely in order for Dr Torley to conclude by asking Dr Dawkins, who used these texts as an excuse not to debate his anti-Christian claims in his The God Delusion with Dr William Lane Craig: "would you be willing to debate the topic of God's existence with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi holding such a view [as Boteach's]? Would you be prepared to look a rabbi in the eye and tell him, "Your God is a genocidal monster"? Or do you also consider rabbis holding such views to be beyond the pale of civilized debate, and would you shun them as you have shunned Professor Craig? ") . . . >> [Onward links and context will be helpful.] _______________ On fair comment, those who have been playing the "the God of the OT is a bronze age moral monster with barbarian genocide-promoting followers" card have some very serious answering to do. And, those who suggested that in raising this issue of a disturbing implication I was merely scare-mongering, have some fairly serious explaining to do, and some correction of the record to do, as well. It seems to me, that it is high time that a more responsible and reasonable attitude were to prevail in new Atheist circles. I suppose I should repeat my bottomline on these matters, that if our hearts have not lurched with those of a Petain, or a Churchill etc, we should pause and think twice before over-judging these matters. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Champ, Liz, I think you may be leaping a bit to characterize KF's comments as personal attacks. What he is saying is that all approaches to the "ought," in the context of translating moral law into civil law, will, in the final analysis, be reduced either to the natural moral law, or the principle of "might makes right." In that context, he is correct, as Plato demonstrated over 2000 years ago. The civil law must always be based on some higher principle that unifies, informs and shapes it. If the objective natural moral law does the unifying, informing and shaping, then leaders, aristocrats, plutocrats, laborers alike, must honor it. If, on the other hand, the aggregate of all the hopelessly varied subjective opinions tries to do the shaping, the project will fail due to lack of unity and the aristocrats will do shaping based on their own personal whims and ordinary citizens must conform to those whims. So, if you and Champ do not acknowledge the natural moral law, you are, by process of elimination, advocating the alternative principle, which is "might makes right." There is no slander involved in making this observation.StephenB_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

I meant a substitute for the word. That they have the same referent. Hope that clarifies my meaning. To address your question:
So, what makes morality, or altruism, objectively true or binding? Again, what’s the ground?
First of all, let me make a distinction between my use of the world "morality" by which I denote our capacity to distinguish what we "ought" to do from what we "want" to do, and "ethics", by which I denote the system of criteria by which we judge what we "ought" to do. So I'm using "Morality" to refer to the fact that we are bound at all, and "ethics" to refer to what we are bound to do. So, in the sense I am using the term "why is morality binding" is a non-question - it's a bit like asking "why is adhesive sticky"? If morality wasn't binding, we wouldn't call it morality. We would never need to use the word "ought". However, there is one wrinkle, that I have addressed, but will repeat: "Ought" is the word we use when we are faced with a choice between actions in which one delivers immediate personal benefits. So if I go to the shop for my sandwich, and I pass the chocolate, I will say to myself "I'd like chocolate, but I ought not to". All I am doing there is balancing my immediate desire for chocolate against my future desire for a pair of trousers that fit properly. But what "binds" me to the action of walking past the chocolate shelves is not what we call a "moral" binding, but simply my desire to sacrifice immediate for future reward. And if I am successfully "bound" to future rewards, others would describe me as "self-disciplined" or "having strong will-power", not as being "morally upright". I'll call that the "non-impulsive ought". But there is another kind of circumstance in which we use the word "ought", and that is when what we "ought" to do is something that benefits not our selves (either immediately, or in the future) but someone else. And when we use the word "ought" to describe actions that conflict with our own immediate or future desires but which benefit someone else, then we are talking about "moral" bindings - the balancing of the desire to benefit ourselves with our desire to benefit others. And a person who consistently does what she "ought" to do, in that sense - does what I will call the altruistic "ought" - we say is a morally upstanding person. In other words, we use the word "ought" to denote what we are "bound" to in contrast to what will satisfy our immediate desires, and when what we "ought" to do refers to actions that will simply benefit ourselves in the future, that's not the "moral" ought, merely the "non-impulsive" ought. However, the "moral" ought, is, as a fact of our language, the "ought" that reflects the binding or our actions to the welfare of others. That's why I say we can use "morality" and "altruism" to refer to the same thing - the choosing of actions that benefit others, even when those conflict with what we desire for ourselves. You could also perhaps, use the word "disinterested" for such choices of action, if the word hadn't gone into sad decline, or "unbiased". So what I'm saying is that by using the word "ought", as in the altruistic ought, we are announcing ourselves as moral choosers. Those who do what they "ought" in that sense, are, truly, "amoral". They do only what suits themselves, either now or later. They do not bind themselves to promote the benefit of others, and so lack morality. So that's the grounding, and it's universal and really very simple. The real disagreements however, start now. Having established (I hope!) that the signifier "morality" has essentially the same referent as "altruism" we are faced with the ethical questions: 1. Who is ncluded in those "others"? Members of other tribes? Citizens of other countries? The unborn? Other species? 2. What constitutes their "benefit"? What they want now? What is good for them? What will happen to them in the afterlife? And that's where atheists and theists often (but not always) differ. The fundamental grounding is the same - altruism - but who should be the beneficiaries and how they should benefit is subject to fierce dispute. And I cannot see anyway round it. Morality may be universally defined, but ethics aren't, and must always be contextual, as someone above actually pointed out to me. So often we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Anyway, even if you don't agree, I hope it is now clearer what I mean.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

20.1.1.2.10 Elizabeth, I have an embarrassingly short memory I'll admit, but it's not THAT short!!! Above you said that altruism was a "substitute" and "what we mean" by moral behaviour. So, what makes morality, or altruism, objectively true or binding? Again, what's the ground?Brent_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: What you have written above is really quite outrageous. You have repeatedly accused me, and others, of accusing you of suggesting that we are amoral, when we have been clear that we are simply accusing you of suggesting that we are promoting an "amoral" worldview. Now you turn round and accuse us, outright, of being "morally abnormal", and indeed, of accusing others of being "dangerous barbarians" when what we have objected to is a worldview (as expressed by Craig) that we consider amoral. You seem unable to apply your own principles even-handedly. In fact, I'll go further. I think you are in the grip of a completely unfounded fear of a worldview that you do not understand, and to which you attribute, again without foundation, most of the world's ills. Your fear prevents you from trying to undertand us, and your lack of understanding feeds your fear. As a result, I venture the suggestion that it is you kairosfocus, who is poisoning and confusing things. I don't think you are doing it deliberately - I think you regard your the prospect of what you fear as adequate justification for your strong words. But that makes them no less destructive, and I ask you to consider at least the possibility, that thing thing you fear is a vast straw man of your own making, and that the reality is a set of people who simply do not share your belief that there are god or gods. Instead, they are awed by the wonders of the natural universe, and the goodness and love of their fellow human beings. Our worldview is not "amoral" - far from it it. We have moral values based on the principle of altruism, just as you do. We just differ in what we see as the origins of that altruism. Peace LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

BTW, when I use Caps Lock, I am not shouting at anyone, certainly not; I only use it for emphasis and augmentation, nothing else is intended.Zoe_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Let us get back to basics* from which all subsequent arguments must necessarilly and logically flow, without which no coherent picture can possibly emanate to formulate any warranted, justified conclusion. The Creationist argument is premised on, "So God created great sea creatures and EVERY* living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their KIND*, and every winged bird according to its KIND*..." ( Gen 1: 21, Emphasis added) (See also vv. 24,25) Now, is there any sound scientific evidence, from the Fossil Record, confirming this propostional truth claim, from the Bible, Almighty God's divinely inspired Word, written by man, Moses, who was inspired to pen such an account of the beginning of all creation? Yes, there is overwhelming factual scientific evidence* facts, supporting the creation narrative account, thousands of years AFTER* the FACT*, by literally MILLIONS of Fossil finds, all of which, each and every time they are discovered, no matter where on earth, or in the sea, each and every time, regardless of the species, they ALL appear 'abruptly' that IS* fully and comletely FORMED* exactly as they were Created* in the first place by Almighty God. Yes, I'm fully aware of all the facy, pseudo-scientific jargon that Evolutionists create, invent, such as 'punctuated equilibrium theory' and other such like fantacies, deviously for their own agenda, to keep Almighty God, our Creator, out of, their Atheist mind-set, and the Universe He Created and sustains. The salient point is, that no matter how many of these false science 'theories' they fabricate or come up with, the plain simple FACTS* of millions of FOSSILS, repeadedly speak in their eloquent silence, LOUDLY* that we were ALL Created, by Almighty God, that's why, we ALL* appear FULLY FORMED, no 'transitional' fossils will ever be found, as WE did NOT* evolve, we were Created. Evolutionary materialists, with their rooted 'Atheism' IS* a priori commitment,cemented IN* a philosophical ideology, NOT science, in fact rampant, rabid, intellectually dishonest atheism, couched, veneered and convoluted in a maze of of pseudo-scientific jargon, which continues to deceive many, who have simply not taken the time to examine the facts, which overwhelmingly support and confirm the creation model as outlined in God's Word, the Bible in Genesis chapter 1 and two. And, this is just scratching the surface, of the amazing evidence and facts, throughout the course of history,that logically, coherently, objectively, and legally, confirm the historical veracity of Almighty God's prophetic Word, in all ancient Pagan Civilizations, that came to utter ruination at His Omnipotent hand, of righteous judgment, because of rampant IDOLATRY, bar none!Zoe_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

And the debate rages on…
LOL – so you know that the stories in the Bible are true because you read them in the Bible. No doubt many Germans in the early 20thC thought Hitler was an heroic leader because they reddit in his book.
And as I mentioned in another thread, I came to believe the Bible is true by study and research. That is why I believe it is true.
I’m not, but it was very charitable and christian of you to make this false accusation. I forgive you 0)
That was directed to GCUGreyArea. I’m sure you know that. Try again.
You then changed the subject from the massacre of the Cannanites, to Abraham and his son … ?
Try reading the thread. The topic started out as being about the Canaanites since Dawkins brought it up as a reason (or excuse) regarding his refusal to debate with Craig. The thread continued and discussion turned to Abraham. Do try and keep up.
The point never came up because we were not discussing Abraham’s son.
We are, however, discussing whether or not God is merciful as seen in the OP. This goes a long way towards proving that point.
Clearly Noah was an unconvincing prophet, a failure – no one believed him, and why should they anyway. Is that the peoples fault, Noah’s fault, or Gods ….
Are you kidding me? That’s the best you can do? Really? Of course it is the people’s fault! They made a choice, didn’t they? If someone tells you that a storm is coming and you need to take steps to evacuate and you don’t, it is entirely your fault if you are injured or killed. Come on. I can’t believe you typed that with a straight face. That, ladies and gentlemen, is truly a sign of a deeply closed mind. This isn’t rational thinking, this is holding tightly to your preconceived notions and not allowing a single fact to penetrate. Sad.
People like David Koresh have had more success than Noah at convincing people thet they are talking Gods truth – The problem for every day folk is how to tell the difference between the Noahs and the Koreshs without waiting until after the fact. You can’t just go around believing anyone who claims to speak for God.
Koresh only had what, a few hundred followers, if that? How would that compare to mainstream religions today with millions of adherents? You’re right that you can’t simply believe what someone tells you. You have to do the research yourself.
You avoided addressing the issue and resorted to a personal attack – perhaps you should simply explain why women should have their hands cut off.
This was rather thoroughly discussed in another thread. I trust you can tell the difference between a statement (“You don’t understand the Bible”) and a personal attack (‘You’re stupid because you don’t understand the Bible”).
Which parts were divinely inspired and how do you tell?
All of it, according to what Paul wrote at 1 Timothy 3:16, 17. You determine this by studying the Bible. Compare translations if you want. See whether or not biblical accounts are vertified through secular history or archaeology. Seriously, didn’t you do any of this while an evangelical Christian? If not, then why not?
Neither can you, yet you keep claiming that you understand the bible but none of us do.
I claim to have done some research. If my explanations are off, then show me where a valid explanation lies. Show me an alternative explanation that doesn’t involve throwing up your hands and saying, now I’m an atheist because I can’t make sense of this. That’s a cop out.
Your mind seems to be closed to the possibility that God didn’t do some of the things that the authors of the bible claim that he did, and that it is simply people creating an historical account after the fact to suit their ideology and justify their actions.
My mind is closed to that possibility because it doesn’t fit the empirical evidence. One of the things that I found interesting in studying the Bible was not only its internal harmony but the candor of the writers. They freely admitted when and where they went wrong, which is not something you see in many other historical accounts.Barb_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

“Scratch an ‘altruist,’ and watch a ‘hypocrite’ bleed.” – M. Ghiselin (1974) Is Elizabeth ready to propose a new (post-Comtean) 'religion of humanity'?Gregory_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Ch has just gone too far, making a false character accusation with no good warrant -- and indeed this is a case on his part of making a repeated ACT of false accusation that points to a significant civility problem for both him and his side of these issues. Remember, this is all in a wider context where he is defending a group, Aiden, that thinks it appropriate to respond to the gospel by publicly smearing verbal filth across it and portraying Christian clergy as blood-mongering vampires, and worse. Even more unfortunately revelatory for his side, the leading spokesman for the new atheism [prof Dawkins] has been carded to appear, next month, on stage with this group and is on record in a bestseller -- so debased are many in our civilisation -- with many outrageous accusations against the God of specifically the OT scriptures, i.e. the Tanakh. As in, just answer: just which "tribe" in the "bronze age" was worshipping YHWH? Is Ch willing to outright accuse major sections of adherents of that same faith today -- say, Rabbi Boteach et al -- of support for Genocide? If not so, then why is it that he and ilk are ever so willing to use these texts to knowingly falsely accuse Christians of support for genocide; knowing full well that Christians find such cases difficult precisely because we do not support racially motivated mass murder? (NB: If the atmosphere-poisoning false accusations on alleged support for genocide trouble you, kindly cf here on, for a first level, more balanced view. Ch et al would be especially well-advised to peruse Dr Torley's response to Dr Dawkins, here, as well.) I find it frankly disgusting and telling on their attitude that in the face of easily accessible careful, reasoned response from many directions, for months now these new atheists have insisted on a false and poisonous accusation that they MUST know is false. If they had said that Christians struggle and sometimes say wrong or even foolish things in response to cases of destructive judgement of nations, that would be true and fair comment. But that is NOT what we are seeing. We are seeing insistent false accusations of genocide that seek to make cheap, poisonous rhetorical points. That tells me volumes on character, attitude, motivation and want of basic broughtupcy on their part. and of course the attempt predictably will be made, here and elsewhere to twist this into a turnabout further false accusation. That tells us worlds about the nihilistic mindset we are dealing with, especially given the basic point that such have no worldview foundational is that can objectively ground ought. Which ends in the tendency to revert to the nihilistic premise that might and manipulation make 'right,' something that has been pointed out by many far more august figures than either of us, on excellent warrant. Namely, absent a worldview foundational IS that is inherently moral Hume's IS-OUGHT gap cuts with guillotine force, severing IS and OUGHT. And evolutionary materialism can only present matter, energy, space time and forces of blind chance and necessity at that foundational level. so, it is inescapably amoral and vulnerable to the rise of nihilistic factions who seek to use might and manipulation to get their way. Obviously, since people do have a built in moral candle, not all who are believers in this view or are influenced by it will be part of such factions, but the reason for that is a tension between the candle within and the inherent tendencies of an amoral worldview. From another angle, that is why Crick's determinism is an "astonishing hypothesis," and it is why Provine found his "no free will" implication such a hard sell. These, of course, are fairly well known voices inadvertently testifying against interest. We can, however, see ever so many cases of the nihilism and manipulation of moral sensibilities just described around us, and what Ch just did is yet another case in point. So, all of this is cheap, willful manipulation of moral sensibilities to gain an advantage in a debate where such advocates of evolutionary materialism have no solid, stable foundation for OUGHT. That should tell us all we need to know, in light of the horror story of Alcibiades and co, on where this sort of manipulativeness and want of sound moral foundation predictably leads, once we move beyond the circle of the genteel to the rise of nihilistic factions.) Notice, also: having a case of stumbling and so needing to correct an ACT of wrongdoing is not the same as having a habitual character problem, but this is now several times in recent days -- despite having been specifically warned -- that Ch has resorted to willfully false statements that he hopes to profit from being perceived as true. Ch has fatally shot his own credibility through the heart. He will doubtless continue with such raillery and cavils as long as he thinks he can get away with taking up the part of the ill-bred and abusive, but he has definitively excluded himself from the circle of those with something serious to say. For record. KFkairosfocus_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Altruism.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

“When you say that God promised the land to the Israelites, that God justified the slaughter etc, how do you know this – you know it from the history as written by the victorious – the Israelites. Perhaps the Canaanites would have told a different story if they survived.”
I know it from reading the Bible.
LOL - so you know that the stories in the Bible are true because you read them in the Bible. No doubt many Germans in the early 20thC thought Hitler was an heroic leader because they reddit in his book.
Why are you arguing in favor of a people who practiced child sacrifice?
I'm not, but it was very charitable and christian of you to make this false accusation. I forgive you 0) We were actually discussing the questions of ethics and morality, and how the relate to the idea of divine command. I think you have got a bit muddled about the topic: You said:
What does 9/11 have to do with Abraham?
I said:
The people who committed those acts did so because they believed that it was Gods will – they had faith, just as Abraham did. You made a series of statements regarding Abraham and the Canaanites and used the idea of faith as something, from what I can see, that justified the events – that made them right. My point was to highlight the fact that your, or their personal faith that something is Gods will does not make it morally right or Gods will.
You replied:
What does 9/11 have to do with Abraham?
I responded:
“Faith that your act of barbarism is by divine command.”
You then changed the subject from the massacre of the Cannanites, to Abraham and his son ... ?
But Abraham didn’t sacrifice his son. He was asked to, but God did not allow him to follow through. Do you not understand that point?
The point never came up because we were not discussing Abraham's son.
Except for Noah and his family, who survived. Interestingly, the Bible notes that Noah preached to people about the flood for decades before it happened. If people wanted to survive, they could have gotten into the ark. How is that unmerciful? He made the way out, but people refused to take it.
Clearly Noah was an unconvincing prophet, a failure - no one believed him, and why should they anyway. Is that the peoples fault, Noah's fault, or Gods .... People like David Koresh have had more success than Noah at convincing people thet they are talking Gods truth - The problem for every day folk is how to tell the difference between the Noahs and the Koreshs without waiting until after the fact. You can't just go around believing anyone who claims to speak for God.
“…tells people to cut off the hands of women who defend their husbands, and on and on and on.”
We get it. You don’t understand the Bible. Just because you don’t understand why God commanded something does not make it wrong. It just means that you don’t understand it. That’s all.
You avoided addressing the issue and resorted to a personal attack - perhaps you should simply explain why women should have their hands cut off.
It has the marks of humanity on it, but it was divinely inspired.
Which parts were divinely inspired and how do you tell?
You, with your limited human intelligence and knowledge may not understand why God did what he did but that doesn’t make it wrong. You’re projecting.
Neither can you, yet you keep claiming that you understand the bible but none of us do.
I’m not rationalizing anything away. I am looking for an explanation of why God did what he did ..... Having an open mind is helpful.
Your mind seems to be closed to the possibility that God didn't do some of the things that the authors of the bible claim that he did, and that it is simply people creating an historical account after the fact to suit their ideology and justify their actions.GCUGreyArea_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

KF, you are a pious fraud and a liar:
That such feel it necessary to conceal their might and manipulation makes might views shows that they realise — deep down — that they are morally abnormal, or even warped, even monstrous.
LOL. You have no evidence whatsoever that any of us who have been criticizing the Old Testament God for his genocidal tendencies secretly believe that "might and manipulation make right". Another false accusation for you to retract.champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Steve: I think it is far more simple to just go to the direct issue: how can OUGHT be grounded, given that we credibly are morally obligated, i.e. are under moral government. (Notice, the objectors above imply this all over the place when they accuse us of all sorts of moral failings, real or imagined, though of course at a more sophisticated level some may actually only be playing the cynical game of manipulating moral sensibilities. That such feel it necessary to conceal their might and manipulation makes might views shows that they realise -- deep down -- that they are morally abnormal, or even warped, even monstrous. Hence, BTW, the ultimate root of playing at the polarise the atmosphere by accusing God of being morally monstrous and his followers of being dangerous barbarians game. Turnabout false accusations tend to confuse and poison the atmosphere. Herr Schicklegruber played that propaganda game to perfection in the 1930's, so long as he could pretend Germany was the victim of others.) Now, Hume was notorious for asserting his surprise at the transition from IS to OUGHT in reasoning. This is a clue as to his correct insight and his fallacy. he is right that unless there is the inherently moral in the foundation of one's worldview, then one may not objectively ground OUGHT thereafter. Either it comes in at foundation, or it is not going to be there, period. And, that, in a context where the general consensus of mankind is that we ARE under obligation of OUGHT. For instance, it is self evidently true that we ought not to torture innocent children for pleasure. The attempt to deny lands one in patent, immediate absurdity. So, the only worldviews worth investigating seriously are those that do ground OUGHT in a foundational IS. That's kinda obvious, but of course many who seem wise and intelligent would deny this. I guess this is the sort of line down which the Apostle Paul argued in Rom 1 (in part), and Locke in his intro to the Essay on Human Understanding, section 5 -- and yes, the biblical allusions and citations are his, I have just filled in references:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]
My immediate point is, that -- given that we face a world in which ought is credibly real and binding -- the best candidate for such a worldview foundational IS sufficient to ground OUGHT is the inherently good, wise, fair Creator God, Lord and Just Judge of all. That shines through even the problem of evil (especially post Plantinga's Free Will Defense). And such is multiplied by other lines of evidence that build a cumulative case that points -- arguably, compellingly -- in the same direction. And, notwithstanding the attempt to create a scientific theory that seemed to account for life and its body plan level diversity without design, the truth is, that evolutionary mechanisms, once assessed on the question of accounting for the origin of functionally specific, complex organisation, come up drastically short, cf. here on. Indeed, these days, they are propped up by institutional fiat, as Lewontin so plainly admitted: a priori materialism. It is no accident that the co-founder of evolutionary theory was a design thinker (at the least, post 1869), and was largely forgotten. In that context, debates over divine command vs natural law etc theories of morality can be brought to a reasonable resolution, noting of course where each can go off the rails, once it is taken out of the better context of being seen as a facet of moral reasoning. That's why I like Thomas Morris' outline synthesis as I already put forth in summary:
[F/N 10 JTS Intro Phil on Ethics] Cf. discussion, Morris [i.e. Morris, Thomas, Philosophy for Dummies, (NY, NY: Hungry Minds, 1999)], pp. 95 – 100, of various ethical theories, leading to the conclusion that virtue-based ethics captures and renders coherent the insights of the various Consequence-focused [teleological], Natural Law, Divine Command, Duty-based [deontological], Social Contract, Utilitarian etc. approaches, whilst avoiding their fatal flaws. In sum, the sociobioloogists are looking at commonalities of human nature in the context of the natural and human environment [natural law and/or sociobiological approaches], which in turn promote social consensus on what is right [social contract], and would lead to a favourable overall balance of benefits as against costs and harm – at the society-wide level [utilitarian]. In turn this arguably reflects the nature we have been endowed with by our Creator, whose commands are “for our own good” [Cf. Deut. 10:12 – 13] – i.e. Divine Command ethics. Virtue based ethics, as briefly discussed above, seeks to build the settled habit/character of thinking, valuing, deciding and acting in ways that are well-aligned to sound insight into the realities of the world in which we live.
So, Morris goes on to counsel that the proper use of rules is in moral training, with the aim being to build a life that is marked by character, wisdom and virtue in proper alignment: our habits of thought, feeling and behaviour should habitually line up with a correct understanding of how we ought to live in light of the ultimate reality of the world. No one model of ethical thinking is a be-all, end-all, so plainly the best is a synthesis that is critically aware and balanced in light of issues and concerns. In particular, the good God will not issue commands that are arbitrary or unjust [noting that justice as an act of government may have to be quite severe in the face of great and destructively spreading evils -- think, Martial law in the face of destructive rebellion and anarchy], and such a God would create a world in which core morality would be discernible form appropriate reflection on the nature of things, e.g. the inherent worth of fellow creatures made in God's image. Thus, I come again to Locke's cite from "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker," in Ch 2 Sect 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil govt, when he set out to ground liberty and justice in community:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men [--> who are equally made in God's image!] . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
Of course, Locke goes on to discuss the case where someone has joined a war against other men, by embarking on the path of injustice, and the issue of force in defence of the liberty and justice of the community, is then warranted. That is the remit for both police and armed military forces. But of course, such power is itself a temptation in a world of finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed men, and so we have to deal with corruption and the possibility of tyranny. On this, Locke grounds the theory of just revolution, in the wider context of Reformation era thought of interposition of existing or emergent lower magistrates or representatives, who lead in remonstrance, and in the end may have to jointly act in defence of liberty and justice in the face of a determined tyrant. This was directly relevant to Locke's context of the English Glorious revolution of 1688, and it is the context of the American Revolution from 1775 on, as can be seen in the arguments in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776, and as can be discerned in the declared purposes of the later Constitution. Here is the shocker that Dawkins et al will not tell us: if you trace back to say Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, 1579, you will find that the Israelite uprising in Egypt is a paradigmatic example for this thought. This of course includes the plagues of Egypt and the promise of land, land settled by seven nations that had now reached the point where the cup of their iniquity was brimful and overflowing. but first, having passed through ten plagues in Egypt that judged the Egyptian state and people based on stubborn ill-will, the Israelites faced ten tests in the Wilderness, and a whole generation perished in the desert due to their own disobedience. Israel was of course warned that it too was subject to judgement as a nation, and the story of the prophets and exiles of judgement, redeemed by the promise of restoration, is too notorious for me to recount. But in each of these cases of judgement, there was fair warning, and a fair chance to repent or get out of the way; indeed it is arguable that in each of our lives, there is sufficient light of truth we know or should know to warn us to turn from the wrong to the right, and the consequences of refusing to do so. The conclusion, regarding judgements of the nations, is that the principal targets of judgement were corrupt elites, whose power had to be broken to restore a morally sane environment; though there were cases that were so corrupt that the judgement was much more extensive. But the balancing witness is the case of Jonah and Nineveh, where the call of destruction was abated 40 days short, once there was a turning from the wrong. And the exchange between the half-understanding prophet and God in Ch 4, is revealing:
Jonah 4:1 . . . it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2 And he prayed to the LORD and said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. 3 Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 And the LORD said, “Do you do well to be angry?” . . . . 11 " . . . should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
Somehow, as a rule, we do not hear of this sort of balancing point from the denunciations of the New Atheists. For those troubled by their fulminations, I suggest here on as a place to begin reflection. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

See? If you look above (20.1.1.2.6), Lizzie has taken this way (your previous way, anyhow) of putting it and run with it to say there is something other than God, a "third realm" perhaps (my words), whereby we may know good apart from God. I think we have to be very, very careful here. She now seems literally to be saying that there is a "rule of good" that even governs God. To your reply: It seems that your "distinction" is only more of a "way of looking at it", and that from our perspective. I agree that it is easier to think of and a better way of looking at it, but when it actually comes down to it, there is no way to say that good governs God, and, therefore, there really is no distinction between saying that what God does is good because He does it, or that He only does things that are (or because they are) good. If good comes from God, there is no difference. I will say, however, I think it permissible, and better even, to think of it in the way you suggest.Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Edit: Elizabeth,
That’s why it is fallacious to argue that atheists have no ground on which to evaluate good. They have exactly the same grounds as everyone else.
What ground is that?Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
That’s why it is fallacious to argue that atheists have no ground on which to evaluate good. They have exactly the same grounds as everyone else. What ground is that?
Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth why moan at the non-God? If you are right then there's not someone actually behind the scenes that Craig is a follower of. Your complaint is merely directed at human thoughts. Since it was the organ that produces other thoughts that produced the notion of God. No different than elves and angels. Elizabeth You and Dawkins should be saying "the NERVE of some neurons producing certain thoughts!. which are completely out of the range of willful behavior. But, didn't Dawkins tell us not to yell at Basil Faulty? Why Elizabeth. it's not Basil's fault. nor his car. You are pro-abortion & you want to make complaints at Craig who you say is defending actions of a fictional god (from your perspective) from a fictional text(from your perspective) but you & Dawkins have no trouble supporting those who kill real babies. Not only do I find you to be a hypocrite but I find your liberal permissive attitude to abortion etc to be abhorrent. The difference though is that you have 0 grounding to make moral judgements, You have failed on this thread to ground morality, You have just assumed it,You have however displayed your hypocrisy. You need to try some introspection.mrchristo_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

More question-begging- How do you know that God would command anyone to do something that is normally wrong? What does that even mean- to be "normally wrong"? And dawkins doesn't have a point except to avoid having to support his position in a public debate.Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Right. Which is the point I have been trying to get across. In order to know whether something is of God or not, you first have to know whether it is good. It doesn't work the other way round. That's why it is fallacious to argue that atheists have no ground on which to evaluate good. They have exactly the same grounds as everyone else. And why it is also fallacious to argue, as Craig does, that if God commands you to do something that would normally be wrong, it is not wrong. In fact, it's not just fallacious but very dangerous. Which was Dawkins' point. Craig.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Interesting questions, Brent. Clearly, Christian Theology would hold, as would I, that God is perfect and unchanging. It would follow that his morality, which reflects his perfect goodness, is also unchanging. In that sense, I think I grasp your point. If, in fact, God's goodness is an infallible guarantee that He will always command what is good, then we can be assured of doing the right thing even if we do not understand why God deserves to be obeyed. So, why fuss over the difference? We either obey or we don't. I think the distinction would be this: There seems to be a difference between [a] obeying a master's rules as fearful slaves and [b] following a Father's commands as loving children. It seems to me that Divine Command Theory lends itself to [a] while Natural Law Theory lends itself to [b]. Don't misunderstand, I think there is a place for both, but the latter approach would be the goal, though the pathway to love may well be through fear. To that extent, it seems that both theories would overlap, and that there would be some truth to Divine Command Theory (we should obey God without question) but more truth in Natural Law Theory, which, in my judgment, provides a better and deeper answer to the moral questions about God's behavior, especially as recorded in the Old Testament, (Why should we obey God?)StephenB_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

kuartus,
So you think it is more merciful to leave them there to starve for days or weeks and die of exposure? Thats more humane to you in comparison to a quick death?
Murder and starvation weren't the only options, kuartus. Why didn't God command the Israelites to feed and shelter the innocent Canaanite children? Remember, according to you there weren't very many of them left in the land since most of the people had decided to leave before the Israelite invasion.
He didnt order their murder. He ordered the most humane way to deal with these children who were put in this situation by their wicked parents.
Feeding and sheltering them is more humane than killing them. Give me a break, kuartus. You are so enamored of this silly book that you're willing to defend it even when it implicates God in the most evil of crimes. Ask yourself the question I posed earlier:
Which is more likely: 1) That a good, loving God commanded a horrible genocide, or 2) That the Israelites rationalized a horrible genocide by attributing it to their God?
champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, "Assuming that God is good, I’d say the way to know whether a command is from God if it commands us to do something good. If it commands us to do something evil then we know that it cannot be a command from a good God." I would agree with most of that. A good God would not command an evil deed. So if you see someone working miracles and then commands you to do something bad, then you know its not a good god your're dealing with. But most theologians and philosophers of religion would say that if God was evil, then he couldnt be the real God anyway. Part of the definition of God is a being who displays maximal greatness. A wicked god would not be maximally great because evil is an imperfection. God would have to be perfect, and therefore display characteristics which signify greatness and would include perfect goodness and fairness.kuartus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

@8.2.1.1.17 champignon "That must be why he said “do not leave alive anything that breathes” instead of “don’t kill the innocent children" So you think it is more merciful to leave them there to starve for days or weeks and die of exposure? Thats more humane to you in comparison to a quick death? "Because after all, whenever a country is invaded, no one but the die hard child sacrificers bothers to defend it. Cockroaches." Its a case by case basis champ. Why you are set on ignoring that is a mystery to everyone but you. Moving to another country was not a big deal to anyone in the ancient middle east. It was routinley done. No one in their right mind would take on a nation that had just brought down the strongest superpower in the world at that time, which was egypt. Getting the hell out would have been the most sensible thing for everyone not hardfast on staying in a land they KNEW was not theirs. It was not their land. They knew that. Someone is coming to take their land back from you, something you know they have a divine deed to, you get to steppin, unless you think sacrificing more kids to your gods will make your gods bring victory to you. And thats why most people left. Cananite nations were simple vassals to egypt. Sensible cananites could do the math. B(egypts gods)greater than C(cananite gods). A(israels God) greater than B(egypts gods). A>B>C, therefore A>C. Therefore "Im getting the hell out of here!" "Absolutely." Im glad we agree! The children would not have been orphaned if the cananites had enough sense to do the right thing. Or do you think its God's fault they were evil? That would be a new one! "It surely wasn’t God’s fault for ordering their murder" He didnt order their murder. He ordered the most humane way to deal with these children who were put in this situation by their wicked parents. It was a the most merciful way out at the time. "And we all know that when you encounter innocent children, the virtuous thing to do is to kill them rather than sharing your food with them." Case by case basis champ. Once the israelites had become well established in the land, they indeed started taking in captives since they had the provisions to do so. They just didnt have the means to do so at the time.kuartus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

“You seem to be rejecting the Quran primarily because there are statements and/or events recorded there that you don’t understand. Perhaps you should give it another chance.”
Who says I haven’t? Didn’t I explain to you in another thread that I’ve studied world religions? I haven’t seen any evidence that what the Quran states is superior to what the Bible states. Can you provide any?
“I’m not actually pushing the Quran. I’m just pointing out Barb’s chronic double standard.”
What double standard? I studied religions, plural, and was convinced—after examining the evidence—that Christianity was true.
“Also consider that the Quran states, “The revelation of this scripture is from GOD, the Almighty, Most Wise.” The fact that Barb doesn’t understand portions of the Quran does not make this statement untrue.”
Then you’d have to compare what the Quran states with what the Bible states and see which book(s) hold up under scrutiny. Consider their internal harmony, their historicity, and their practical value. There are probably other metrics that you could measure the two with. I would agree that both could be misinterpreted or misquoted. But misquoting or misinterpreting scripture proves nothing. <BLOCKQUOTE“I thought it was the Israelites land?” It was, which is why they eventually took possession of it.
“Anyway, if we use your own logic then clearly the Christian God wasn’t strong enough to stop the 9/11 terrorists so maybe you are worshipping the wrong God. Were Saladins victories against the crusaders due to him believing in the right God?”
Not really. Jesus himself explained that bad things would happen on a worldwide scale in Matthew chapter 24. He talked about ‘wars and reports of wars.’ The apostle Paul also mentioned living in ‘critical times’ at 1 Timothy chapter 3. The question is why does God allow it? The issue is one of universal sovreignty and the explanation goes back to the Garden of Eden. Humankind has been given millenia to prove that they are incapable of ruling themselves without God’s direction and favor. God promises that eventually peace will happen on a worldwide scale.
“When you say that God promised the land to the Israelites, that God justified the slaughter etc, how do you know this – you know it from the history as written by the victorious – the Israelites. Perhaps the Canaanites would have told a different story if they survived.”
I know it from reading the Bible. Why are you arguing in favor of a people who practiced child sacrifice?
“Faith that your act of barbarism is by divine command.”
But Abraham didn’t sacrifice his son. He was asked to, but God did not allow him to follow through. Do you not understand that point?
“We have a book in which God commands his people to commit genocide…”
But several peoples including the Gibeonites were spared. Rahab and her family were spared. Does genocide allow for survivors?
“… wipes out the entire population of the earth in a flood…”
Except for Noah and his family, who survived. Interestingly, the Bible notes that Noah preached to people about the flood for decades before it happened. If people wanted to survive, they could have gotten into the ark. How is that unmerciful? He made the way out, but people refused to take it.
“…tells people to cut off the hands of women who defend their husbands, and on and on and on.”
We get it. You don’t understand the Bible. Just because you don’t understand why God commanded something does not make it wrong. It just means that you don’t understand it. That’s all.
“I look at that book and see no way it could have been written by an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God. Nothing about it seems divine. It’s obviously the work of fallible people who were projecting their own moral shortcomings onto their deity.”
It has the marks of humanity on it, but it was divinely inspired. You, with your limited human intelligence and knowledge may not understand why God did what he did but that doesn’t make it wrong. You’re projecting.
“You look at the same book, rationalize away all the evil, and see the morally perfect word of God.”
I’m not rationalizing anything away. I am looking for an explanation of why God did what he did, which is apparently more than what you did as an evangelical Christian. I took the time to both read and study the Bible. Having an open mind is helpful.Barb_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Finally, the Missing Link has been found! How long until Google changes their logo to celebrate this momentous occasion?Jammer_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

ouch, linkkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Interesting post, Stephen.
Put another way, these Old Testament killings are not good because God commanded them (Divine Command theory); God commanded them because they were good (Natural Law theory).
When you put it like that, the question one must ask is: Where does the "Natural Law" come from? If it is from God, then I don't see any distinction, or meaning, whatsoever in your statement. If it isn't, then God is not sovereign because He has some other thing (Natural Law) outside of Himself which governs Him. If God is Good, and all good flows from Him, then necessarily everything He does, indeed, defines goodness (to us. He wouldn't need any definition as He IS the definition). But, when we in addition say that God is perfect, that also entails that He be unchanging (for He would have to become less than perfect if He changed). So He therefore would (and could) also never "on a whim" decide that adultery was now okay. So I don't see how, in at least this narrow area, Divine Command Theory is a problem (though it may well be in other related areas of which I'm not aware). Note: Some may not like the phrase "could never" associated with God, but the Bible tells us that God cannot lie, for instance.Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

No, no, no! Sorry! I thought you'd understand. Your link is missing the link.Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

20.1.1.2.2 Elizabeth, Alright. But then, now you are going to have to apply that to what happened with the Canaanites. Can you take your understanding of morality and apply it to that narrative in the Bible and make a case that it was immoral? (And it looks like, from a quick scan of what is posted elsewhere here, that you didn't explicitly make the charge of genocide, but that you agree that according to the narrative in the OT that you would say it is) Also, the definition you gave of genocide from the UN is a wee bit broad. Technically, anyone could be charged with genocide who has murdered or seriously hurt someone under that definition.Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply