Dawkins speaks: Why he won’t debate William Lane Craig … Craig advocates genocide

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 20, 2011

Atheism, Culture, Darwinism, News}

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

Here (The Guardian, October 20, 2011). Craig, he says, advocates genocide. Referencing the Hebrew wars recounted in the Old Testament, he quotes Craig,

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

[See also: Historian: Fool or coward? For Dawkins, that is not an easy choice]

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods’ (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

Hey, wait a minute. If Dawkins did not want to debate Craig because he purportedly advocates genocide, why didn’t he say that up front many months ago?Are we to believe that Dawkins kept this serious accusation under his hat until now?

Surely, it is more likely that he never intended to debate Craig, because he is more used to receiving adulation than critical analysis. And then conveniently someone forwarded him a useful excuse.

Let’s hope Craig’s team offers to debate him on the points he raises, as long as Craig is allowed to raise others later, like the widely doubted plausibility of ultra-Darwinism.

Comments

My usage is absolutely standard, nullasalus. More to the point, I have explicitly defined my terms so that there can be no charge of equivocation. Do you agree, or disagree, with my reasoning, given my definition of the terms?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

OK, I responded @29. I am just now getting the hang of placing my posts in exactly the right place.StephenB_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, I posted a response to your discussion on morality @29, where you originally made your points. Thanks for directing me to the proper place.StephenB_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

I'd just like to point out that the average four year old also sees the world as teleological and purposeful - hell, the average person sees the world as that.nullasalus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Also notice her magnificent retooling of the words "subjective" and "objective", along with "ought". Once you slice away what amounts to "I think most people have similar moral intuitions, and I'm going to call this objective because I define objective to be agreement", there's not much there.nullasalus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, I read your comments @29, and I thought you might be interested in my response. Rightly and wisely, you recognize the universal nature of the moral code when you describe the four-year old child who realizes intuitively that it is wrong to beat up on his sister. In keeping with that point, you also recognize that most people in most cultures perceive this same universal standard that defines the difference between right and wrong. One could ask, therefore, what it is, how we come to understand it, and is it is sufficient to guide and instruct us in all areas of life. For you, the moral code is derived, for me, it is apprehended. You identify its source as the mind of man and I identify its source as the mind of God. With your scenario, we survey the world and draw inferences about which behaviors will benefit us and our neighbor. With my scenario, we sense the activity of our conscience, which teaches us about our obligation to follow the natural moral law. The local question, it seems to me, is this: How do we advance in virtue and how do we avoid the trap of deluding ourselves into believing that we are better than we really are? What about the abortionist, for example, who says, “Oh yes, I love my neighbor as myself, but the babies that I kill are not really my neighbors.” Is he really a good person? Or what about the college professor, addicted to pornography, who says, “Hey, I gave to the Red Cross and I paid for my daughter’s college education. What else do you want?” Is he moral? What about the more subtle elements of morality which deal with unobserved realities, such as personal intentions and motivations. Quite often, people do the right things for the wrong reasons. If I help someone across the street in order to impress onlookers, am I being a good person? According to the Sermon on the Mount, perfect morality goes beyond actions and addresses the problem of the human heart. Though not easy to do, it is easy enough to say that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves. But what about applying that same rule to our bitter enemies? Did Bentham, Mill, or even Aristotle ever attach such a high standard to morality? No. That challenge comes exclusively from Jesus Christ. Theories of mind are designed to avoid hard sayings. It is easy enough to say that we should not do evil to another person, but what about the command that forbids is to even wish evil on another person. This is another hard saying. Theories of mind tend to produce convenient recommendations that allow us the luxury of avoiding change. It is easy enough to say that we should not murder, but what about the more perfect version of that command that forbids cruelty of language? True morality requires exertion. Yet, man made moralities gravitate toward the soft virtues, such as compassion and kindness, while avoiding the hard virtues, such as chastity and humility. Further, advanced morality tests and challenges our character because we can grow in one virtue even as we regress in another. Theories of mind cannot provide us with a model that we can use to test our progress. Only the examples provided by Jesus Christ or the saints that followed Him can do that. Indeed, this raises the most important question of all. To what end is virtue supposed to take us. Everything turns on what we are, where we came from, and where we are going. Are we risen beasts or fallen angels. It makes a difference. If we were created for a specific purpose, and if that purpose is to achieve union with God in the next life, then anything that facilitates that journey, both for ourselves and others, is a moral act and anything that impedes it is an immoral act. If, on the other hand, we have no purpose, then it really doesn’t matter what we do because no relationship lasts and no act has any eternal significance. In the final analysis, though, I still think, in spite of your protests to the contrary, it is fair to say that you have no consistent standard for making moral judgments. On the hottest topic of the day, abortion, you stand with the pro-choice contingent on the grounds that it just seems right to you. I know that abotion is wrong because it violates the natural moral law, the Ten Comandments, The Sermon on the Mount, and the Beatitudes. There is a difference beteween feeling and knowing. On the subject of God’s actions with respect to the Canaanites, see my post at 35StephenB_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

T, Thanks for the response, you raise a lot of interesting points, I'll have to think them over.junkdnaforlife_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

I am sorry, but the “golden rule” cannot be entrusted to humans because we have no idea of what the greater good really is.
So why did Jesus entrust humans with it?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

T, The main problem I have with your reply is that, oddly enough, I agree with it. Like I said, I could easily understand a Platonist or the like running an argument against a particular instance of OT morality and saying "This OT act was immoral and evil and wrong!" - because when the question "What makes an act moral or immoral?" comes, you're presenting a metaphysics that has, or can have, an objective, concrete answer. But if the reply to that question instead amounts to, "Whether I like it or don't like it" or even "Whether most people like it or don't like it", then I'm tempted to say the conversation is over. Now, you give an example of the Totalitarian person condemning McCarthyism. (I happen to think McCarthy's role in that era is misunderstood, but let's run with this for now.) The problem is that this seems to presume that the American would agree that McCarthy's acts were unjustifiable. But if someone is biting the bullet and saying McCarthy's acts were justifiable, and if their critic is from a totalitarian state (I assume for the purposes of this example this person endorses that state's acts), then it seems like a reasonable move for the American to say, "I could understand your condemning McCarthy's acts if you thought that under no circumstances was it right to prosecute dissidents. But clearly you don't - in fact, your standards are such that those acts are entirely justifiable. So on what grounds are you criticizing me here?"nullasalus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

No, I don't want to do it. I think you know it yourself. I don't want to continue the conversation until you apologize for what you said about God. If you want respect for yourself, you should respect beliefs of others. Isn't it the principle you said you followed?Eugene S_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Geez there is evidence for a snowball earth and a global flood could produce the same evidemce... Oh and for those who think snow = water then evidence for a snowball earth IS evidence for a global flood.Joseph_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

There was no global flood.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

E.g. those who lived before the flood, apart from the eight people saved by God in the ark.Eugene S_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Please specify what you are referring to, Eugene, and what exactly you think it says about my own moral standards. Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, What you allowed yourself to say, and to mean it, about God tells a lot about your own moral standards.Eugene S_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

There is a problem finding which reply goes where. Pardon. Dr Liddle, The foundational IS that can ground ought is not an arbitrary authority, but the necessary being who is inherently good as to character. (In short, Euthyphro's dilemma fails, as is expected, it was designed to answer to the old Greek gods who are not the foundational IS nor are they anything more than Nietzschean supermen writ large.) Since we are bound by ought, as even you acknowledge, and are contingent, such an IS exists. As a result, the ought will be reasonable and right. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

evolutionary MATERIALISM is an a priori worldview imposition on science, education, institutions and society.
No, I do NOT "know" this, kairosfocus. I know you think this, and that you have presented persuasive argument and evidence for it, but I beg to disagree. BTW, I have now posted my response to your 14 points on the Lewontin thread. I apologise for the lateness of the post.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: As the current thread on the matter will at once reveal -- and as you know or should know after months of discussion now, evolutionary MATERIALISM is an a priori worldview imposition on science, education, institutions and society. That is what is being dressed up in a lab coat and passed off as "Science." GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

...until evo mat thinkers can ground oughtness in a worldview foundational is
1. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with morality; it is a scientific theory. 2. I have, in this very thread, explained a perfectly good derivation of moral principles that is not premised on the existence of a deity 3. The threat from atheism is no greater - and I would argue much less - than the threat from non-atheistic ideologies. What constitutes a worrying threat, AFAICT, is fanaticism, whether it be Islamic, Christian fundamentalist, racist, eugenicist, communist, or any other ...ist that is grounded in intransigence. 4. However, I would say that a very particular danger is posed by any philosophy that defines what is good in terms of a perceived Authority, rather than deriving it from basic humanitarian principles. There may be False Gods and a True God, but you need a moral touchstone to distinguish the True from the False, not the other way round. IMO.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

We should not forget that all souls before the Redemption took place went into hell (the Hebrew, sheol). After his Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell and freed all those souls who waited for Him there and wanted to be liberated, from Adam until that day. John the Baptist had preached to them beforehand in hell, having been murdered before Christ. I believe that those poor souls of Canaanites could have been granted salvation and then taken to Heaven by Christ. I agree with Waynekent00 (#34.1.2) that we may not know everything. So I would not delve too deep into such problems. Here is something that happened to St Augustine, who at some point in his life was thinking heavily about Providence and peoples' fate. Some accounts maintain that it was in a dream others that it was an actual fact of his life. He saw a little boy who was playing by the sea. St Augustine came to him and asked what he was doing. He answered that he wanted to pour out the see into a small hole he had dug in the sand. St Augustine says that God wanted to educate him by means of this conversation with the boy, not to touch subjects that are beyond human understanding.Eugene S_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Dr BOT: Have you actually taken time to look here on [including he next section as is clipped above]? It is not apparent from your continued turnabout rhetoric. All that that seemingly clever game does is to advance the polarisation tactics Dawkins set out on to duck having to account for some very ill advised polarising and contempt-filled rhetoric over decades; and which several others have taken up above. What is diagnostic that something is very wrong is the lack of responsible balance in the remarks, and on the latest point that has stirred your ire to resort to personalities, no responsible review of our civilisation's history would dismiss the God of the Bible as a minor middle east deity. Which is an allusion to a huge false accusation and slander: those who believe in the God of the Bible are followers of a moral monster and are fascistic, theocratic would be terrorists and tyrants. That is poisonous slander, and it is predictable that if unchecked it is going to lead to persecution and even murder of decent people of conscience. If you do not see that, you do not understand the matches that are being played with. That, FYI, is why I take such things so seriously, and it is why your tossing out silly labels like "hypocrite" as shut-up rhetoric, is no help. And, it still remains the case that until evo mat thinkers can ground oughtness in a worldview foundational is, they are left with might and manipulation make "right." 100 million ghosts from the century past warn us on what is at stake. Please, for the sake of our civilisation, listen to them. So, please wake up. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Bingo, kairosfocus! Please see my application to the Canaanite situation below.Waynekent00_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

junkdnaforlife: In what should all the other cultures which practiced abominations be dealt with? God isn't represented in the Bible as ordering the destruction of Amazonian headhunters or Indonesian cannibals. The only "abominable" cultures that he orders the destruction of are those who stand in the way of Israel's *lebensraum*. A bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say, if God's goal is to erase abominations from the world? And rather convenient for the Israelites to have a suspension of the Geneva Convention, just as they are looking for a lush homeland. Otherwise, they would have to wander in the desert, like the descendants of Ishmael (who ended up surviving quite well). Besides, why couldn't the children who were, say, under the age of two, or four, or some other young age, where they would not yet have learned wicked Canaanite ways, be spared, and raised as Israelites? And if the Canaanite women were equally guilty of the abominations, why weren't they slaughtered too, instead of being kept alive as concubines for the pleasure of the Israelite men? The whole episode smacks of the moral standards of war as practiced in the ancient Mediterranean, which were not Christian standards. And if you argue, well, God taught a higher morality later on, that might solve the problem, except that many fundamentalist Christians insist on treating all parts of the Bible as equal, and proof-text their morality from the Old Testament as freely from the Gospels. What Elizabeth is trying to get Christians to say is that the morality taught in the story in unacceptable, and what she is getting is largely defenses of the unacceptable. Of course, at rock bottom here is the difference between two ways of reading the Bible. If we take the Bible as a sort of videotape of past reality, so that every word recorded, including the speeches of God, must be taken as wholly accurate, then the Bible is teaching that God did indeed order this slaughter. If we take the Bible as a collection of writings by imperfect humans, who had no direct access to the events of the distant past, and in interpreting them found their understanding elevated by sporadic encounters with the Holy Spirit, then we would expect a mixture of the high and the low in the understanding of God. We would expect some of the carnal motivations of Israel to be imputed to Israel's God. We would then be very careful how we drew moral lessons from the Bible, even in cases where God is said to have commanded or done something. We would measure all Biblical statements against the present-day witness of the Holy Spirit and the standard set by Jesus in the Gospels. I suspect that Craig holds for the most part to the first view of the Bible. So does a good chunk of American Protestantism. I hold to the second. This is not the place to argue why one might take one position or the other, but it does explain why I react to the Old Testament story in much the same way as Elizabeth does. She thinks God should be held to a higher standard. The difference between us is that she thinks one has to step outside of Christianity to find that standard. I think we have to step outside of Deuteronomy and Joshua to find that standard, but not outside of Christianity. T.Timaeus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle The Golden Rule, in our civilization has a well-known provenance. Historically, when that Judaeo-Christian tradition is scanted, the GR is left in the dust and the nation or region suffers. The course of history from 1789 - 1989 is replete with examples. And as for its grounding, kindly tell my WHY, on evolutionary materialist grounds I OUGHT to treat my neighbour as I would like to be treated, and so also why we are under an obligation of OUGHT and why we therefore have rights. Oughtness is precisely teh opposite of how we choose our actions, it id=s prior to choice and conditions where we should -- but too often do not -- go. In addition, you need to ground the premise that choice is real, on said premises, in the teeth of say Provine's observations as follows:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . . . [[Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]
This and related issues have been put before you repeatedly over the course of months and earlier in this very thread. I find nowhere in your responses a satisfactory answer. What I am finding is unacknowledged borrowing that fails to ground the value of the human being that lies underneath the validity of the GR. The consequences of dominant evolutionary materialism in a culture are long since known, as the memory of Judaeo-Christian values fades under the impact of the propaganda and rhetoric of materialism presented as progress. Just ask those 100 million ghosts from the century just past I keep noting on. Plato, in The Laws, Bk X, 2350 years ago, warned in a similar vein, on how might makes right becomes the dominant view when evo mat seizes cultural and institutional power:
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
This too has been highlighted for months and ignored:
They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . . these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others
I think you do not realise the matches you are playing with. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

KF, 'the irresponsible rhetoric of turnabout' - all you have there is a self proclaimed methodology for conducting debates in which you are allowed to criticize, slander, make claims of moral inferiority and issue accusations of lying and deceit, but your opponents aren't. I stand by my claim that you are a hypocrite - in fact, I would argue that it is an empirical observation!DrBot_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

nullasalus: I agree with your points about Dawkins vs. Craig; certainly any comments about why Dawkins is avoiding Craig, and why Dawkins should or should not avoid Craig, are on topic for this thread. It was when the discussion moved to "How can an atheist have any moral standards?" and "Atheist countries do more evils than Christian ones" that it started sounding more like apologetics to me. I agree that defenses of Craig's position inevitably entail discussing the basis of morality, but I think that the at least at the beginning of the discussion, it is Craig's side that has to clarify things. After all, Christians are always saying how much Christianity improved the morality of the world, getting rid of slavery, treating women better, raising standards of sexual behavior, making people kinder, etc. But then they say that their God ordered the destruction of whole peoples, the taking of women as concubines and servants, etc. It is the Christians who have something to explain. Now if one wants to make another argument, i.e., that atheists have no basis for their morality, that is a legitimate question, but I don't see why it has to be answered in order to deal with the first question. Let's suppose that Elizabeth has absolutely no basis for her moral judgments, except personal taste. It may still be the case that there is an objective moral standard, and that the action of Israel in the Canaanite case violated it. It also may still be the case that the Old Testament story teaches a morality that falls beneath the standard set by Christ. I'll give a parallel. Suppose someone from a totalitarian country was a shrewd observer of the USA. Suppose that, during the McCarthy era, this person observed that the USA was betraying its own vaunted commitment to freedom of speech and expression, by blacklisting, prosecuting and persecuting dissident artists, writers, etc. Would it be a legitimate argument against the truth of this observer's criticism to say: "You should talk! You come from a country where there is even less freedom of speech than in the USA!" I don't think it would be. Sure, one might say that the person who argues in this way is like the pot who calls the kettle black, but that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black. T.Timaeus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Dr BOT: You have just above simply given yourself over to the irresponsible rhetoric of turnabout. Please, pause and think again. Onlookers, Please take time to read here on and see for yourself just what Dr BOT is trying to cavalierly dismiss with turnabout quips. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: I have responded to Dr Liddle's turnabout attempt on the worldview foundations for objective morality on p. 2 here. It should be now transparently obvious that evolutionary materialism is inescapably amoral, and that the moral principles Dr Liddle puts up are borrowed form the very same worldview that she would belittle and dismiss. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

It is quite plain to me that you have not worked through either the implications of the Dawkins/new Atheist demonise the Christians Alinskyite agenda (you would doubtless be shocked to see where it is already at and where it is heading — criminalisation and persecution or even murder of decent people
Here is a good discription of what you wrote above:
It caricatures, demonises and sets up people who have honestly and responsibly faced and struggled with difficulties in their worldview
Now this:
I think the time for some serious reconsideration of some very poisonous rhetoric directed against God and those who take him seriously, has come.
EL:
At best, it seemed to me, the writers of those accounts are reporting a misinterpretion divine command. More likely the whole thing was made up long afterwards.
KF PLEASE have the decency to actually read and respond to peoples comments on their merits rather than creating and knocking down straw men.DrBot_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

No I cannot bring myself to condemn what he has stated as a person of conscience. Elizabeth is simply wrong. She makes an emotionally charged case for an issue that requires a sober and humble look at what can be known from what is written and from what we understand about God as a just judge of what is evil. Craig is not advocating genocide, and the Canaanite slaughter is not a genocide, but a judgement. Elizabeth in one instance challenged us to reconcile the Canaanite slaughter with Jesus' own views; Well in case we don't believe that Jesus is a judge in the same manner, let's take a look at scripture once more....... Update: Having read further posts, I see that this has turned out to be a rather heated debate. Let's just understand that Christians reconcile the Canaanite slaughter and other such problematic passages of scripture with what can be known by scripture of the whole character of God, and to Christians, while it seems problematic on the surface, given our proclivities to a moral society that is far removed from the barbaric nature of life in ancient times, it can be reconciled when we consider that God is our judge and sometimes executioner when our evil gets out of hand; which in most cases it does. We all die in the end, and that is our fate; it's no different with Canaanites as with us. I find it interesting that people like Dawkins likes to bring attention to this one instance as if it exemplifies something that is out of character for the God of the scriptures, but our own destinies should illuminate that it is not. God is our judge. God can also use human beings as judge and executioner, as our own laws founded on Christian principles demonstrates. If you do evil, you will be punished and in some cases, die. It might seem then that the real problematic nature of the Canaanite slaughter is with certain discriminations - women and children. I don't think anyone who has a human soul could not be repulsed by even the thought. However, given that we all die as a judgment for our sins, I fail to see how that makes a difference and why this particular passage is singled out. The whole of scripture points to how death is in the end defeated. Evil is defeated such that there is no more need for death and destruction. And yes, Jesus is not only loving, but will return as our judge. Is that surprising to anyone? This is not only Craig's view, but the view of most mainstream Christians. I was going to quote scripture, but I think most of us know where to find those references. Again, you have to soberly look at what scripture states as to the nature of God's character, and understand that human beings, despite our evil and deserving of death, are valued to the extent of God's own sacrifice, bringing us in the end to eternal life. It is in this context (knowing Craig's writings quite well) that Craig speaks. Moral outrage and grandstanding is really uncalled for in this light. If you can't understand that, then I daresay you don't understand scripture and it's many subtle contexts, and furthermore you don't really understand human nature and our long documented history of evil. If we were left to our own devices as a race, any hypothetical outsider would have the right attitude of satisfaction in justice done when we are as an outcome judged in a manner not unlike that of the Canaanites. But understand that if what is described in the bible is true, it doesn't end with the Canaanite slaughter or any other judgement. It ends with a glorious new beginning where there is no more evil, and we are a part of that new beginning. It's the end of Christianity (to borrow a phrase), which reconciles the passage with God's loving nature.CannuckianYankee_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply