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

Here's where I'm coming from, and I may be off the deep end but hear me out... (Also remember, we're assuming the existence of God here, and answering why he'd order the removal of this culture) In a nutshell... where were they gonna go? Most of the men would have been killed in the ensuing battles right? There were a few that tucked tail and ran sure, but had they escaped they'd just have set up shop elsewhere. And I don't think it was just the men who were tossing junior on the grill, no? Momma wouldn't have been innocent either. Had any parent survived would they give up their gods? Probably not - I'm pretty sure they'd be convinced that the gods had cursed them and started looking for a way to get back in their favor or something. I don't think there was much in the way of Atheism here (least not that I know of). So this would leave a bunch of pissed off, confused zero to thirteen year olds (jewish manhood's thirteen right? Did I mix that up?) who've been breed in a war-like, hardcore, creepy-religion-y environment and, for some, would have a natural built in reason to hate Israel forever. Which would've posed Israel a problem. I mean, they can't take 'em as your own - the older ones would remember what happened. I doubt the pre-teens would have looked to Israel as saviors in any circumstance. Hates a pretty powerful poison, right? They also can't take 'em as slaves (to young for one), and the Israelites weren't exactly doing to well from all that wandering if you remember. They could barely support themselves (Moses had to make a rock spring water for 'em, and God had to send bread from the sky to feed them if the stories are true). Honestly its a wonder they blazed through their enemy the way they did. And they can't just let them go wander out into the wilderness. They'll get killed for sure then, and there's no gaurantee it would be quick. If Craig is right (and I don't know that he is, but lets suggest it is for now) then the best option for the souls of these kids is a return to heaven... or wherever it is souls existed pre-Jesus. It's not ideal, I'm sure God would have been thrilled with cleaner, friendlier, non-pedocidal cultures in the area. But short of blasting them all away himself, Israels the next best thing. Not to mention the instant message it sends to the rest of the area - "don't screw with us, we're just looking for home." Anyway, that's where I'm at. I hope I explained it. There's probably a hole or two somewhere you guys can pick apart that I'm not seeing, but whatever. We'll get there when we get there. My point of course was that this wasn't just Israel being a bully or Caanan being 'innoocent'. I hope I was clear. Ciao. - SonfaroSonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Kindly read the above at 7.3, to see what is going on in and around Craig's remarks. Then, kindly provide the evo mat justification for objective morality as a basis for sitting in moral judgement of "the Christians on this forum" from your declared view. Good day, sir.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Sorry, that's predictably snide. You have been corrected on your abuse of that text as well. Good day.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Matthew chapter 5.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Son, this one, sadly, reaches to that level.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

When it is accusatory and laced with invidious insinuations, as you full well know.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

I have taken liberty to post an annotated article by WLC at 7.3 above [the one being snippeted, and IMCO out of context], to give us a chance to hear the attacked man speak in context in his own voice. On fair comment, WLC -- who openly acknowledges FACING DIFFICULTIES ON THE MATTER -- has been strawmannised and demonised by Dawkins et al. As per usual.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

F/N: It is worth the pause to actually cite the exchange at Dr Craig's site, here, as it exposes the rhetorical patterns that play out in Dawkins' rhetoric and in the exchanges below all too well, in particular how Dr Craig has been strawmannised, smeared and burned in effigy by snipping out of context bits and pieces of a much wider and more nuanced analysis than you would realise from the snippets presented. I am sure he won't mind the full article being presented here, by way of letting the attacked man speak for himself: ______________ http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767 >> Subject: Slaughter of the Canaanites Question 1: In the forums, there has been some good questions raised on the issue of God commanding the Jews to commit “genocide” on the people in the promise land. As you have pointed out in some of your written work that this act does not fit with the Western concept of God being the big sugar daddy in the sky. Now we can certainly find justification for those people coming under God judgement because of their sins, idolatry, sacrificing their children, etc... But a harder question is the killing of the children and infants. If the children are young enough along with the infants are innocent of the sins that their society has committed. How do we reconcile this command of God to kill the children with the concept of his holiness? Thank you, Steven Shea Question 2: I have heard you justify Old Testament violence on the basis that God had used Israelite army to judge the cananites and their elimination by Israelites is morally right as they were obeying God’s command (iif would be wrong if tey did not obey God in eliminating the cannanites) . This resembles a bit on how Muslims define morality and justify the violence of Muhammad and other morally questionable actions (muslims define morality as doing the will of God). Do you see any difference between your justification of OT violence and Islamic justification of Muhammand and violent verses of the Quran? Is the violence and morally questionable actions and verses of the Quran, a good arugument while talking to Muslims? Anonymous Dr. Craig responds: According to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), when God called forth his people out of slavery in Egypt and back to the land of their forefathers, he directed them to kill all the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan. These stories offend our [--> as in, first person, plural] 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. The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is painted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Contrary to the vituperative rhetoric of someone like Richard Dawkins, the God of the Hebrew Bible is a God of justice, long-suffering, and compassion. You can’t read the Old Testament prophets without a sense of God’s profound care for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the orphaned, and so on. God demands just laws and just rulers. He literally pleads with people to repent of their unjust ways that He might not judge them. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ez. 33.11). He sends a prophet even to the pagan city of Nineveh because of his pity for its inhabitants, “who do not know their right hand from their left” (Jon. 4.11). The Pentateuch itself contains the Ten Commandments, one of the greatest of ancient moral codes, which has shaped Western society. Even the stricture “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was not a prescription of vengeance but a check on excessive punishment for any crime, serving to moderate violence. God’s judgement is anything but capricious. When the Lord announces His intention to judge Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins, Abraham boldly asks, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18.25). Like a Middle Eastern merchant haggling for a bargain, Abraham continually lowers his price, and each time God meets it without hesitation, assuring Abraham that if there are even ten righteous persons in the city, He will not destroy it for their sake. So then what is Yahweh doing in commanding Israel’s armies to exterminate the Canaanite peoples? It is precisely because we have come to expect Yahweh to act justly and with compassion that we find these stories so difficult to understand. How can He command soldiers to slaughter children? Now before attempting to say something by way of answer to this difficult question, we should do well first to pause and ask ourselves what is at stake here. Suppose we agree that if God (who is perfectly good) exists, He could not have issued such a command. What follows? That Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? That God does not exist? Hardly! So what is the problem supposed to be? I’ve often heard popularizers raise this issue as a refutation of the moral argument for God’s existence. But that’s plainly incorrect. The claim that God could not have issued such a command doesn’t falsify or undercut either of the two premises in the moral argument as I have defended it: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2). So what is the problem supposed to be? The problem, it seems to me, is that if God could not have issued such a command, then the biblical stories must be false. Either the incidents never really happened but are just Israeli folklore; or else, if they did, then Israel, carried away in a fit of nationalistic fervor, thinking that God was on their side, claimed that God had commanded them to commit these atrocities, when in fact He had not. In other words, this problem is really an objection to biblical inerrancy. In fact, ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part of the legends of the founding of Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates. Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective! The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with thinking that it implies more than it does. I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative. What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him. [--> Indeed, as governor of the cosmos, every life and its end is under the purview of God's superintendence. This should then be seen in light of the biblical frame: this life is a prelude and a test for those of age to be accountable, as is implied in the discussion in Jonah 4 on the innocents. Sufferings and injustices of this age will be compensated in the life beyond the grave. And, given God's goodness, as Rm 2 highlights, those who walk towards the good in light of what they know or should know, he will welcome.] So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong. On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command. All right; but isn’t such a command contrary to God’s nature? Well, let’s look at the case more closely. It is perhaps significant that the story of Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom--along with his solemn assurances to Abraham that were there as many as ten righteous persons in Sodom, the city would not have been destroyed--forms part of the background to the conquest of Canaan and Yahweh’s command to destroy the cities there. The implication is that the Canaanites are not righteous people but have come under God’s judgement. In fact, prior to Israel’s bondage in Egypt, God tells Abraham, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16). Think of it! God stays His judgement of the Canaanite clans 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability! This is the long-suffering God we know in the Hebrew Scriptures. He even allows his own chosen people to languish in slavery for four centuries before determining that the Canaanite peoples are ripe for judgement and calling His people forth from Egypt. By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel. 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). [--> notice something Craig seems to miss which Copan highlights (and which is linked onward from my previously linked discussion), this issue of intermarriage points to conquest rather than genocide, i.e. the genre of the offensive declarations is a particular kind of war-rhetoric not intended or understood by those commanded directly, as genocidal. And even intermarriage is to be understood in light of Rahab and family, who turned to God and were received into Israel] This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself. I spoke once with an Indian missionary who told me that the Eastern mind has an inveterate tendency toward amalgamation. He said Hindus upon hearing the Gospel would smile and say, “Sub ehki eh, sahib, sub ehki eh!” (“All is One, sahib, All is One!” [Hindustani speakers forgive my transliteration!]). It made it almost impossible to reach them because even logical contradictions were subsumed in the whole. He said that he thought the reason God gave Israel so many arbitrary commands about clean and unclean was to teach them the Law of Contradiction! By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.[--> note as just above, sons and daughters o be not married implies that there was not an expected wiping out. I here differ with Craig, who admits struggling with a painful difficulty. I think Copan has made a key observation] 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. So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing. But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint. For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal. Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East. Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do (especially if these are founding legends of the nation). No one was wringing his hands over the soldiers’ having to kill the Canaanites; those who did so were national heroes. Moreover, my point above returns. Nothing could so illustrate to the Israelis the seriousness of their calling as a people set apart for God alone. Yahweh is not to be trifled with. He means business, and if Israel apostasizes the same could happen to her. As C. S. Lewis puts it, “Aslan is not a tame lion.” Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world! By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior. The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands. The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God? >> _______________ Now, we can see a much more nuanced picture of a serious thinker addressing a serious and difficult matter. He is by no means an advocate of genocide, nor is he a nazi as Dawkins et al subtly invite us to think by using that loaded language. I think he errs in thinking the commands were meant, understood and carried through literally and with the sort of thoroughness that we of the C21 would use; it meant conquer, do not compromise. There would be horrors of war aplenty, and death and slaughter, but that is a common lot of men across history. There is a terrible calculus in war, by which innocents will die, but at the same time if we are unwilling to fight, the evil will triumph and will destroy the good. The true blame for that lies in those who resort to evil and violence until they become plagues on the earth and a menace to other nations. Let us never forget that had France and Britain been willing to face a relatively minor war in the mid 1930's we would have been spared the death of 60 millions a few years later as Nazi Germany gained more and more power to prosecute war. A sobering lesson of history. And, one we need to heed now that Iran is apparently 6 months out from having nukes to put on its missiles, or smuggle into other countries with nuke suicide bombers. We may disagree with some aspects of Craig's analysis and views, but even so, Craig clearly struggles with the issue, and seeks to face its consequences. He is NOT an advocate of genocidal slaughter, unlike the ruthlessness of Hitler who wrote as follows in Mein Kampf, rationalising his views on the stream of Darwinist thought that had been deeply embedded in German culture through Haeckel and others, despite the terrifying -- and in the event dead accurate -- 1831 prophetic warning of Heine:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .
It is time for a much more balanced and sober addressing of the issue. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

This ought to make some atheists mad: Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - By Tim Stanley Religion Last updated: October 21st, 2011 Excerpt: 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.,,, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/bornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

All, Again, looking from within the New Testament at the Old... Yes, it is a huge moral issue no matter how you look at it. But who tells us what's good and bad in the first place? It is God. All other codes (when I was a kid there was such a thing as the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism!) are derivatives of it in the best case. No wonder, we are all here basing our positions on the Ten Commandments anyway. In contrast, for a genuine atheist, there is no God, there is no problem of conscience, just the problem of convenience and comfort. Lenin and Trotsky were examples of true atheists. They invented what they called the "revolutionary code", i.e. anything that serves to quicken the victory of the international revolution is good, anything that is in the way is bad.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

---Elizabeth: "Children easily grasp that commanding genocide is evil. My son saw that aged four." So, are you saying that morality is an objective reality?StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

pfft- Ask GodJoseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

I've heard that some people oppose abortion, even though it spares the children from suffering. I wasn't aware that genocide could be justified by the fact that dead children are saved from suffering. Think of all the children Hitler spared from the horror of circumcision.Petrushka_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Races can do evil, Elizabeth.Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

So how do you figure out what those definitions are?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

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?Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Because it's not a fact, ba77, and even if it was, which it isn't, it's irrelevant to what is a fact, which is that Christians here are apparently not disagreeing with Craig that an evil act ceases to be evil if God tells you to do it. Which I find quite preposterous.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Assuming this is true, why was it necessary to kill the children end the culture?markf_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Glad to see you aren't holding yourself to the same standards of civility that you demand from others. Do I need to quote the bible passage about hypocrisy at you again?DrBot_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Huzzah! Wiki! ... Bear in mind of course that, as it's wikipedia, anyone could have wrote this up. However, according to the website that sorta got me through college: -"A number of scholars maintain that there is significant evidence of living child and animal sacrifices made to Molech idols, based on numerous claims from the ancient Hebrews and Romans, coupled with the discovery of Molech statues[citation needed] with charred skeletal remains, as well as the graves of many children near certain Punic religious sites in North Africa, such as Carthage. Opponents of the theory of Punic human sacrifice suggest that these children died naturally, some perhaps in an epidemic and point to the few undeveloped fetuses amongst the other dead as evidence for this, though this remains speculative and unfounded.[<-Obviously not me]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion#Pantheon Course, Wiki says citation needed, so take that with a grain of salt. Anyway, burning children to death sounds a lot worse than cutting them down with a sword. At least with the sword it was quick. And they (Caanan) would have been doing this for several generations, yes? Sorry, but that's one of those cultures I'm not sorry to see go. My two cents. - SonfaroSonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, you simply refuse to grasp the fact that you have no moral basis in which to express moral outrage at God if you deny the reality of God. ,,, as the child in the short video showed the 'wise' professor who had denied the reality of God because of the presence of evil in the world.,,, It is clear that you have no intention of being reasonable in this matter, thus I will refrain from the topic with you.bornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

"Races" don't "do evil" Joseph. People do. People who ascribe evil-doing to a "race" are called "racists". The Nazis, for instance.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

I am trying to work out how a question can be a lie!markf_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

But which is more evil- genocide of a race that is doing evil to humanity or allowing the evil to grow unfettered?Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Eugene Like Lizzie I appreciate your attitude in answering this question. I am still confused as to whether you think the killing of Canaanite children was wrong. I assume that (unlike me) you believe in objective morality so presumably it is not just a matter of the norms of the time.markf_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

The institutionalisation of any belief system is a serious encroachment of human freedom. I neither advocate it nor defend it. And the issue at stake is not atheism. It is Craig's gloss on the allegedly God-commanded genocide of the Canaanites.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Um... Weren't the caananites burning children at this point? Should they have let that kind of culture continue? Could've sworn Id read that somewhere... hold on.Sonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

OK, I guess we'd all better take five. I am utterly puzzled though. I'd have thought that most Christians would find Craig's piece seriously problematic. I simply cannot understand why being appalled by it should be considered "venomous", or "slander", and I cannot see a single lie in Markf's post.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Whoa Kairos, take it down a peg.Sonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

I do not for a moment claim that atheistic regimes are immune from the problems that beset theistic regimes. My own view is that fanaticism of any sort is what is dangerous, fanaticism being the disavowal of uncertainty. Uncertainty is good. I would never go to the stake for my convictions, but I would probably go to the stake for my right to remain uncertain. What I do say is that specific theistic claims, in this case, the claim that if an evil deed is commanded by God it isn't evil, is morally untenable. Some atheistic claims are morally untenable too, such as the claim (although I've only ever read it as alleged by a theist) that there is no morality and everyone can do what they like. I'm not the one polarizing here. I'm asking Christians how they can defend a very specific claim made by a prominent Christian proselytiser that seems to me self-evidently evil. Eugene so far is the only Christian here even to recognise the problem.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply