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

Example?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Any race that was brought up to do so.Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

On abortion: Unlike most people here, from what I can gather, I've been pregnant. At least eight times, in fact, although only on the last occasion did my pregnancy go to term. Some of the pregnancies I only found out about after they had aborted. One was decribed as a "chemical" pregnancy - my test was positive but the implantation failed. My longest, apart from the one that went to term, was 11 weeks, although the foetus had almost certainly died at seven weeks. I will never forget the sight of the heart of what would be my son, beating at 8 weeks gestation, and the reassurance that I now had an "85% chance of going to term". And indeed I did. And yes, he's gorgeous, turned eighteen last week. I grieved over every one of those pregnancies. I even had a name for the one that went to 11 weeks, "Robin". The day I bled irrevocably, was the day I heard my sister was pregnant - my parents' first grandchild. It was a huge relief to be feel that in away my pregnancy had been transferred to her. Strangely, she gave her son the middle name "Robin" - just coincidence. She never knew about the name I'd had in mine for my baby. But my grief was not for the embryos that died, the embryos that in a technical sense never were (before implantation, there isn't really an "embryo" and the early fertilised ovum used to be called a conceptus until the primitive streak appeared). And in a way it was no less for every slightly late period I had. The grief was for the children that might have been but never were. For litter of children I would never have, and for the son I thought I might never have. And as some estimates are that 80% of conceptions never get as far as implantation, there may have been far more even of those than I ever knew. So why do people think that the end of a pregnancy is the death of a human being? It's the end of the possibility of a human being. But the process of becoming a human being is not an instantaneous one. There is no moment at which there was a human being now, that wasn't there an instant ago, or at least there is no biological reason to think so. A human being develops over a life time, and certainly over a pregnancy, from an avolitional cluster of cells to a baby capable of deciding which thumb to suck, learning what feels good, and what feels bad, and looking forward to the next good part. And so my view on abortion is: the longer the duration of the pregnancy, the more heavily does the foetus's life weigh against the mother's in the question "who is my neighbour"? And from the end of pregnancy, when the interests of the two can, if necessary, be considered quite separately, then I think the law must regard the baby as in possession of full human rights. But before that - no. Before that, the mother's and foetus's interest are deeply interdependent, and must be weighed against each other's, in my view, and the mother's, being the more fully human of the dyad, must take priority. In other words, I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term, and advocate that the longer the pregnancy lasts, the more weighty she should consider any decision to terminate to be. But forcing an 11 year old, for instance, to carry to term a pregnancy incurred by rape, is, I think, clearly unjustified morally. I would draw the grey boundary round our neighbourhood between that 11 year old and her potential child. I am aware that people will vehemently disagree, but I consider it right to state what are my very long-considered views on this issue.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Do you even know what my position is on abortion, Waynekent00? And what on earth, even should you be correct, does it have to do with whether a good Good could possibly advocate genocide? Or whether an evil act could possibly become good just because it is commanded by a deity?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

OK, I am glad to hear at least some Christians here acknowledge "real difficulties" with the treatment of the Canaanites (and it is not a lone example, as I am sure you are aware - the story of the Midianites is as shocking). I also hear, bizarrely, that some people think that people like Dawkins and myself have no right to criticise theistic morality (or any morality) because - well, I'm not sure what it's because of. We don't believe in objective morality or something, or we don't have a basis for morality, or we think that anything goes and anyone can make up their own morality. As far as I can see, the alleged position of atheists on morality has no bearing at all on the ethical questions raised by Craig's interpretation of the Canaanite story. Those issues could be raised by anyone - Christian, non-Christian, atheist, whatever. But they do go to the heart of the problem incurred when you delegate to a deity the task of arbitrating between right and wrong: is something right because the deity says so, or is the deity the right deity because s/he says what is right? And in that sense the two issues are related - not because atheists cannot mount a legitimate ethical critique of Christian morality, but because there is a real divide here over what constitutes "objective morality". Let's get some terms straight: I do not think there is an "objective morality" in the sense that somewhere in or beyond the universe there is a moral True North that would be there whether or not humans existed. However, I do think that there are two styles of deriving moral principles: one is from a perceived authority; the other is from philosophy. The first I regard as essentially subjective, because the choice of authority is a subjective one, or at least culturally transmitted one. Given that there is more than one claimed moral authority, and that the moral precepts differ between those authorities, and indeed the moral precepts derived from each authority differ from sect to sect, the moral precepts you emerge with seem little better than choice or chance. Not objective, anyway, at least I am not persuaded that there is any objective way of deciding which is the True Authority. The second I'd call relatively objective, because independent people can come to the same conclusion given the same pair of pretty fundamental premises. First is: Morality is about what we ought to do. But what do we mean when we use the word "ought"? The word "ought" is the word we use when there is a conflict between the execution of actions that will fulfill our own inclinations and some alternative. We say: "I'd like to do this, but I ought to do that". So "ought" is used to indicate a course of action that deprioritises self-centred (literally self-ish) interests in favour of the other-centred interests. So we have: Morality is about what we ought to do. What we ought to do is that which benefits others no less then ourselves. Therefore, morality is rooted in the maxim "treat others as you would be treated". Or, if you prefer "love your neighbour as you love yourself". Anyone can derive that maxim, and it has been derived, repeatedly, in just that way, by many cultures over many generations and places, including a-theistic cultures such as buddhism, and the pagan culture of ancient Greece. It's simple, it make sense, as humans were are almost uniquely capable of observing it because we possess the almost uniquely human capacity for "Theory of Mind". And, as I said, even a four-year old can tell that a God who is capable of parting the Red Sea to let the Israelites through, but cannot or will not prevent the following Egyptians from drowning, is not Loving His Neighbour As Himself. So how to reconcile the God who became man and told us to love our neighbours as ourselves, who told us that whatever we do to the least of our brothers we do for him, and who forgave his torturers and killers even as he hung in agony, with the vindictive, jealous, genocidal tyrant of much of the Old Testament? Easy. You don't. They can't be the same guy. Something really is Wrong With This Picture, and any four year old could tell you what. That's because morality really is objective. Even a four-year-old is capable of figuring out that he ought not to poke his sister, because he wouldn't like to be poked, even if its fun to hear her wail. He may choose to ignore the "ought" in his head, but it's still right there, in his head, because figuring out that kind of thing is what human heads are rather good at. Or, if you prefer, you can consider that God put it there when he made us human - that it's what constitutes our humanity, our soul, our "knowledge of good and evil". Whatever. We have it, clearly. And we can use it to tell quite easily what is evil and what it good. We can warp it a bit by deciding that "others" are only our own kin, and that it doesn't apply to Canaanites, or Midianites, or Jews, or Poles, or the Irish. And we can argue about where we place the boundaries of our neighbour-hood. At least, finally, we are starting to draw them more and more broadly, although we still argue about whether it includes the unborn, and, if so, at what stage after conception, whether it includes even the unconceived - our descendents. Or other species. But the principle is so simple a four-year-old can do it.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Eugene
Being a Christian, I believe that God is the One who defines the law. So morality is an absolute category, as is truth. In fact, truth is even a “who”, not a “what”. Did I answer your question?
To be honest - no. My question was - do you think the killing of the Canaanite children was wrong? I am finding it difficult to get a straight answer to this question from the Christians here!markf_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Dawkins tends to avoid the question of free will in the same manner that a used car salesman avoids pointing out bald tires. It is his best interest in order to make the sale. He says "I'm just not interested in free will, it's not a big question for me." But his position is understood. "a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility... mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live" - Richard DawkinsUpright BiPed_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Races can do evil, Elizabeth.
Which ones, Joseph?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

I have seen nobody smearing Christians with support for genocide. I see Dawkins, and myself, challenging Craig's declaired conclusion that something as self-evidently evil as genocide is not evil if God commands it. If you do not share that view, fine. If you do share it, I challenge you to defend it. And far from "all sorts of nazism lurking just beneath the surface" of Dawkins' (and my) words, what is rearing its head above the surface of Craig's words is - nazism. Literally. Genocide on the basis of a blanket condemnation of an entire race as evil. Genocide on the basis that another people need - dare I call it lebensraum? Genocide on the basis that some higher authority commands it, and obedience trumps conscience, the very defense rejected at Nuremberg. No, I am not "smearing" people with support for genocide. I'm trying to open your eyes to what Craig is actually saying - and, if you will, to reject it. tbh, I don't expect he even really means it. I can only think he has failed to notice the implications of his conclusions. Kairosfocus - I am glad to hear that Christians openly acknowledge struggling with these texts. Craig seems to have lost his struggle. I wish the rest of you well with yours.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

No, it is my sincerely held belief, a belief I have come to by reading your comments.DrBot_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Golly. How about actually citing some actual atheists on this?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Can you cite where Richard Dawkins says that "free will does not exist"? Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

F/N: Above the poisonous miasma of racism has been cast. Let us just say that the cases of Rahab [Canaanite] and Ruth [Moabite] -- both of whom were ancestors of King David and thus of Jesus as well -- suffice to demonstrate that RACE is not the issue, rather than syncreticism and assimilation to the corrupt pagan practices (as was actually a problem). It is time for a far more responsible reading of the texts in context by objectors.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Richard Dawkins: Free will does not exist. Richard Dawkins: William Lane Craig abused his free will by defending the God of Old Testament. LOLStephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

I was really sorry to read your response. What is human freedom, Elizabeth? Sometimes you are speaking headlines behind which I can't see any personal attitude. There is no true freedom without responsibility. True freedom is understood only in terms of sin and virtue which are again religious notions. Cf John 8:32-34. "32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Oddly enough, I was ready for that kind of answer. No, I must disappoint you. The answer is wrong. History-wise, it is ungrounded to speak about atheistic societies because until very recently by history standards, there were no such societies. So it necessarily has been borrowed from religious contexts. I positively cannot remember any state of the past that would be atheist. Correct me if I am wrong. So could you tell us more about atheistic societies you mentioned. How many of them do you know about? I am sure we shall be able count using a single hand. Remember, officially atheist societies. So, North Korea, Soviet Union. Two? Maybe I missed something else... Tell us please.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Note the all too predictable effect of Dawkins' trifecta fallacy: distraction, polarisation and atmosphere poisoning. I only hope some of the more thoughtful objectors -- and those puzzling over real difficulties will benefit from the materials that address such.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Please see here, in context; I am not punching at shadows.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Atheist: I claim that God violated the objective moral law which I also claim doesn't exist. LOL Atheist: I believe that morality is subjective and that everyone should be able to arrive at his own personal code--except for God. LOLStephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Is the act of kllling children objectively wrong?StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Dr BOT, that is patently false slander.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Sorry, that's just more ducking and dodging. Before you can make moral judgements that rise above "ick, I don't like prunes," [HT, CS Lewis] you need to warrant the binding nature of morality beyond might and manipulation make right, i.e. nihilistic amorality such as engulfed Russia. Let's focus what is really on the table given the push of Dawkins et al, by citing Provine:
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 [--> as in we are programmed by blind chance and necessity, and have grounds for neither morality nor sound reasoning. ABSURD! But, dress up absurdity in the holy lab coat and see how ever so many will bow down before it.]. . . . 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. [--> they intuitively recognise the absurdity, and the blatant mismatch to our experience of real and significant choice] I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> reductio!] . . . . How can we have meaning in life? When we die we are really dead; nothing of us survives. [--> so, if you have the power to get away with it why not do as you please] Natural selection is a process leading every species almost certainly to extinction . . . Nothing could be more uncaring than the entire process of organic evolution. Life has been on earth for about 3.6 billion years. In less that one billion more years our sun will turn into a red giant. All life on earth will be burnt to a crisp. Other cosmic processes absolutely guarantee the extinction of all life anywhere in the universe. When all life is extinguished, no memory whatsoever will be left that life ever existed. Yet our lives are filled with meaning. [--> should tell you you have gone off the rails] Proximate meaning is more important than ultimate. Even if we die, we can have deeply [[subjectively and culturally] meaningful lives . . . . [[Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]
Utter, self-referentially absurd amorality! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

I think the real problem is your own belief that you are infallible, and that everyone is out to get you.DrBot_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

When it is accusatory and laced with invidious insinuations
Sounds like a lot of your own comments (ad hom laced oil soaked straw-men ignited to poison the atmosphere etc etc ....) Pot, meet kettle. You really need to take a long hard look at your own behavior KF. A little charity and humility would go a long way.DrBot_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

BA: Tim Stanley is cutting:
Dawkins writes that he is so disgusted with Craig's thesis that he cannot possibly agree to meet him in person. “Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context," he adds. "What context could possibly justify them?” Actually, the context is called “Christian apologetics”, and it’s been around for centuries. It's the attempt by scholars to present a rational basis for belief in God. Part of that process is running difficult bits of the Bible past the tests of reason and ethics. To return to the entire post that Dawkins quotes from (because, contrary to what he wrote, context does matter to a serious thinker), Craig begins thus: “These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.” Ergo, Craig’s purpose in writing this piece is to unravel the paradox of a moral Bible that also includes lashings of apparently random violence. Craig stresses that these passages of the Bible are difficult for us to read because we are not of the age in which they are written – they are just as alien to us as Beowulf or the Iliad. That’s because Christian society has been shaped by the rules of life outlined in the New Testament, not in the section of The Bible in which this massacre occurs. Far from using this passage to celebrate the slaughter of heathen, Craig is making the point that the revelation of God’s justice has changed over time. The horrors of the Old Testament have been rendered unnecessary by Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. That’s why the idiots who protest the funerals of gay soldiers or blow up abortion clinics aren’t just cruel, they’re bad theologians. We are left with two possible conclusions from Richard Dawkin’s flimsy sick note. The first is that he doesn’t understand Christian apologetics, which is why he unintentionally misrepresents Craig’s piece. The most frustrating thing about the New Atheism is that it rarely debates theology on theology's own terms. It approaches metaphor and mysticism as if they were statements of fact to be tested in the laboratory. Worse still, it takes the crudest equations of faith (total submission to an angry sky god) and assumes that they apply to all its believers at all times equally. That most Christians living in the 21st century don’t know who the Canaanites were and only go to church because it brings them an intangible inner peace, totally escapes these atheist pedants. The second explanation is that Dawkins is a coward. He likes to pick fights either with dunces (like the deliciously silly and obviously gay Ted Haggard) or with incredibly nice old Christians with no fire in their belly (like Rowan Williams). Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly. This is a damning indictment not only of him, but of the clerical establishment of Great Britain. But this time, he understood that he was up against a pro. In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy. In Craig, Dawkins met his match. Like Jonah, he was confronted by the truth and he ran away.
Sometimes a short snippet just will not do. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Son, Please see 7.3 above and the onward linked discussion by Copan, accessible here courtesy RZIM. My own linked here is possibly helpful. It is an outrage that something that a great many Christians openly acknowledge struggling with is being rhetorically abused to smear us with support for genocide with all sorts of hints of nazism lurking just beneath the surface. For shame! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Well, I don't think a 'race' can be evil, so I agree with you there I guess (sorry Joseph). But I'm not sure that's what happened here. I mean, weren't the Israelites and Caananites the same race? Weren't both semitic(semetic)? I was under the impression that it was the culture of the Caananites that sealed their doom, not the color of their skin (or whatever physical attribute one can think of here.) It's like East Coast rap vs. West Coast rap. Both were pretty much the same ethnicity (black, for those of you who don't do hip-hop) but their cultures they came out of were pretty different. To the point where things ended up getting violent (well, that and Shug Knight) and we ended up losing biggie... and Tupac fled the country (He's still alive darnit! >:[ ) Joking aside, I think that's the situation we have here: A really bad culture that needed weeding. Tragic? Sure. But it [the child burning thing] had been going on for a long time. And I'm pretty sure there had been people coming through warning them. So it's my opinion that cutures can be evil: like Nazi-culture, or Gang-culture, or Twilight-fans culture (too much?;-P) and that this was the case here. My two cents. - SonfaroSonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

"Objectively, the Canaanite slaughter was evil. Atheists can see that...An evil act is one that violates the principle that we should treat others as we would want to be treated." I dont care to read this whole thread, can someone tell me if Dr Liddle ever answered the question if this applies to abortion as well?Upright BiPed_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Link. (By way of explanation of my resort to language I do not lightly use: On fair comment, to snip a man struggling with a difficulty out of context and project on him a false caricature is slander. To project that slander by poisonous questions unto an entire class of people who one knows or should know better about is a willful misrepresentation, one of the subtler forms of lying -- often unconsciously indulged. Sadly, it took shouting in effect to get attention for at least a moment from one who studiously refuses correction on flimsy excuses.)kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, you obviously are not aware of just how mistaken you are. If you were better read on the subject, you may retract your statement. For one, it was not God who tortured children in ritualistic fire sacrifices, it was the Canaanites. It would do you well to confirm this for yourself, by reading in context, Jeremiah 19:4-6 among others where it clearly illustrates this. "They have built me the high places of Ba'al to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Ba'al - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth" and Leviticus 20:1-5 clearly admonishes Israel to NOT sacrifice their children, warning them prior to their exposure to the cult of Molech who was engaged in ritual child sacrifices. " The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. 3 I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name." and in Deuteronomy 12:30 God commands Israel through Moses... "You must not worship the Lord your God in their way because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." Wow. Looks to me like it was the Canaanites who were performing the ritual child sacrifices, even burning them alive. What do you think? In Leviticus 18 (see also Lev. 20:9ff) the stipulation against child sacrifice is listed among various sexual sins, e.g. incest (18:6ff), adultery (18:20), homosexuality (18:22) and bestiality (18:23). It looks to me that God considers this detestable and made it abundantly clear in multiple times and places that it should not take place. What do you think? Like Dawkins, I suspect you are not qualified to debate on such matters, and as I have showed earlier, you are also not qualified to indict God on a charge of being evil or sinful. But you are qualified to seek forgiveness for your rebellion and unrepentant sin, and I hope you do in the manner described in the Bible. It's got nothing to do with what you or others do, but what Jesus did for you. You say here, regarding the Canaanite wars (or battles, rather) "given a post hoc justification on the grounds that the deity of the winners commanded it." Your assumption both false and inconsistent with other portions of the Canaanite narrative that describe instances in which the Hebrews were not victorious. Here you say "Fortunately there is no archaeological evidence that the story is true at all." That's a fallacious line of reasoning. Just to illustrate why, let's play. Fortunately, there is no positive evidence that the atheist faith is true (which is meant to imply that it is not true). That doesn't work for you either, does it? Remember Dr Liddle, absence of evidence counts as evidence of absence only in the case that an hypothesis or theory is put forth that first explains why there is not more evidence than what we already have. And in any case, there is abundant evidence that the old testament as a whole is entirely reliable as an historical document and is used by historians regularly for research and location of places and events mentioned in the Bible. The fact that there is no direct evidence for a particular event in the Bible does not mean it did not occur. And finally, you say here in closing "on basic principles of fairness and humanity." Are you referring to principles of equality and a high regard for human life....which happen to be values set forth from God to Israel?Bantay_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply