Thread: William Lane Craig Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025914
Posted by Tea (# 16619) on
:
The Chronicle of Higher Education has profiled philosopher-apologist William Lane Craig here, calling him "Christian philosophy's boldest apostle."
How would you describe him?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I don't know Craig personally at all, and am not familiar with his work. I'm glad that there are those around who are able and willing to make an intellectual case for the validity of Christian belief, and to follow in the footsteps of people like Pannenberg, Plantinga and Wolterstorff.
It is much easier to break a vase than to make one. There are many who are dismissive of Christian faith on the spurious basis that "science has disproved it", whose philosophical groundwork deserves to be challenged, and a thought-through alternative offered.
Obviously, from a Christian POV I am very disappointed if Craig is, as Susan Doris claims, a "conceited creep", but I am also interested in the case he makes and its merits which is independent of his personality.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Would you like to elaborate? From the OP link he seems like a decent chap. And it gives reasons far more eloquently than you.
The only thing I know about William Lane Craig is this post by Dawkins. He's pretty scathing about him. On the one hand anyone who can get Dawkins' knickers in a twist so effortlessly is all right in my book. On the other hand, if Dawkins' quotes of Craig's arguments are accurate then Craig may have some odd ideas about OT genocide.
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
I don't agree with Craig 100%, but I think he does a good job of exposing how flimsy a lot of the atheists' arguments are. I think the whole "apologist for genocide" thing was something Dawkins thought up as an excuse for refusing to debate him.
Again, I don't know Craig personally, so can't comment on his off-stage personality.
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on
:
This seems like a misapprehension.
What people like Dawkins fear is not argument, but being ignored. For what it's worth, I attended a lecture by Dawkins many years ago, before his drive to be the Pope of Atheism, and as it was mainly about science, it was hugely interesting and suggested to me that he is clearly a very intelligent chap when he sticks to his subject. That said, I find his persistent arguments for atheism immensely wearying and, for that reason, ignore him. I don't need someone to argue against him for me, as I already decided that I don't want to buy what he's selling.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Would you like to elaborate? From the OP link he seems like a decent chap. And it gives reasons far more eloquently than you. ...
Yes, I was wondering about that. Susan Doris are you speaking from personal experience or specific knowledge? Or are you just expressing your general opinion of anyone who is a theist of any sort?
DouglasTheOtter, I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Would you like to elaborate? From the OP link he seems like a decent chap. And it gives reasons far more eloquently than you. ...
Yes, I was wondering about that. Susan Doris are you speaking from personal experience or specific knowledge? Or are you just expressing your general opinion of anyone who is a theist of any sort?
DouglasTheOtter, I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
You'll have to explain the inconsistency to me as well, because I don't see it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I know that he's aroused particular ire amongst atheists with his defence of some of the 'genocides' in the Jewish Bible (OT).
Opinion seems to vary with regard to his philosophical arguments, for example, kalam. Some people rate him highly as a philosopher, others seem to say that he's full of sophistry.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
I think he's a sophist who is more a performer than a philosopher, and who isn't beyond peddling the Noble Lie.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit. Why do some think he is not genuine? He comes across in the article as if he is, to me, and I'll be taking a look at what he's been saying.
When does confidence in one's own point of view become conceit?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit…
…as does "peddling the Noble Lie"
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit. Why do some think he is not genuine? He comes across in the article as if he is, to me, and I'll be taking a look at what he's been saying.
Because I think he knows some of the flaws in his arguments, but papers over them in a highly glib manner in order to make them sound much more convincing than they really are. He states his presuppositions as obvious, and dismisses opposing views as unlikely rather than seriously grappling with them.
It's a performance that is intended to persuade in the manner of a politician rather than being truly rational dialogue.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
He is certainly feared as a debater, as he is very practised at it, he knows his arguments like the back of his hand, and can roll them out one after the other. There is a hint of the Gish Gallop.
Many opponents in debate just can't deal with his polished performance, but I think in written form, he is more vulnerable.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit.
Not necessarily. It can also include indifference to the truth. (e.g. I don't know what the truth is, but I'll make an assumption that's convenient to my argument.)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
If only I was good at remembering the anti-WLC arguments that I have read; and could persuade the most articulate poster to come on over here! I did not watch the link in the OP because I have in fact listened to enough of him to know that in 'debating' (ignoring his opponent's points), I have to fast forward him or cringe!
No, I've never met him personally;yes, he's a clever, glib speaker, but can anyone show a link where the debate is conducted with mutual interest, respect etc? I'd support RD against WLC any day, unsurprisingly!
custard - could you give an example of where 'he exposes a flimsy atheist argument?
chris stiles - Hear, hear!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
"Christian philosophy's boldest apostle."
If he really was that then I would think I might have heard of him. But I haven't.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I am pretty sure that Dawkins would get slaughtered by Craig in debate, simply because Craig has been doing it since he was in short pants.
He just sweeps you outside with his rapid accumulation of arguments, and a sort of Hollywood grin.
I suspect Dawkins know this, and avoids him, but I don't really hold that against him (Dawkins).
I must say, if I ever have to read another long debate over kalam, I may give up on life's meaning.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Fact does not win debate, style wins debate.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
"Christian philosophy's boldest apostle."
If he really was that then I would think I might have heard of him. But I haven't.
He was in the news in the UK about 18months ago over whether Richard Dawkins would debate with him or not. Craig challenged, Dawkins declined.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
You'll have to explain the inconsistency to me as well, because I don't see it.
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It's metaphor then, yeah?
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
I read WLC's "Reasonable Faith" recently. I thought he did a good job of setting out the rational basis for theism and Christianity in particular. There were afew bits of complicated mathsy space stuff that I didn't understand, but I put that down to my little brain, rather than sophistry on his part.
In his introduction he makes the point that children are only ever taught Bible stories and the basics of the Christian faith are based around "because the Bible says so" underpinnings. Many yong people abandon faith the first time they meet a strident atheist because the church has failed to prepare them for any counter arguments, nor given them the skills to enter into meaningful debate. His mission is to equip young Christians with knowledge and tools to tackle people who try to persuade them away from faith, and I like him for that.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Enoch said quote:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
I'm intrigued. Wouldn't that mean materialists couldn't believe in ideas, either? Or thoughts or theories?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Enoch said quote:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
I'm intrigued. Wouldn't that mean materialists couldn't believe in ideas, either? Or thoughts or theories?
That is a can of worms. The eliminative materialists argue like that, and are of course, rather vulnerable to the view that then we can't take their ideas seriously.
However, many materialists argue that eliminativism is not an inevitable position.
But if you accept that ideas exist, then it looks as if some kind of dualism is looming, doesn't it?
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
You'll have to explain the inconsistency to me as well, because I don't see it.
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
I don't think there has to be a "realm", merely two or more people sharing ideas. Really, all the talk of the replication and evolution of memes (and in fact genes) boils down to is a very convoluted and scientific-sounding way of saying "what will be will be" which doesn't seem to be a very promising basis for an academic career, although Dawkins seems to have managed it very well.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I read WLC's "Reasonable Faith" recently. I thought he did a good job of setting out the rational basis for theism and Christianity in particular.
Could you quote one or more of his 'rational basis' statements?
quote:
His mission is to equip young Christians with knowledge and tools to tackle people who try to persuade them away from faith, and I like him for that.
Could you also give an example of the 'knowledge' he gives? I doubt there will be anything that would change an atheist's lack of belief in any god.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I read WLC's "Reasonable Faith" recently. I thought he did a good job of setting out the rational basis for theism and Christianity in particular.
Could you quote one or more of his 'rational basis' statements?
quote:
His mission is to equip young Christians with knowledge and tools to tackle people who try to persuade them away from faith, and I like him for that.
Could you also give an example of the 'knowledge' he gives? I doubt there will be anything that would change an atheist's lack of belief in any god.
Sorry, Susan Doris, I don't have the book any more, it was only lent to me, so I can't quote directly from it.
As for the knowledge he gives, I was referring to knowledge of what people like you, and the even more aggressive variety of atheist believe about Christianity, along with considered responses that hold water. The point is that a young person faced for the first time with a clever sounding statement like "of course there is no proof that Jesus even existed" is easily thrown off balance and persuaded to give up her faith. But if she expects to meet that argument, and is prepared with knowledge of how historical data is collected and assessed, she might be able to enter into a meaningful discussion on the topic.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How is an idea "spreading" different than a meme "self-replicating"? Those seem to be describing the same thing.
Also, I'm not sure the fact that ideas can change over time or eventually be rejected means that they have to be physical objects (i.e. "have an objective existence").
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
Craig is a bit cocky and sometimes it feels unwarranted—I think he puts much more faith in Kalaam than he should. He probably thinks his faith in it is justified though, and the cockiness represents his view of the weakness of the opposing arguments.
At other points I find his attitude can be encouraging—I think that a culture of intense skepticism often prevents us from really feeling confident in anything, and it's nice to have a counterweight which says 'that's not how it has to be'.
It might be nice if he didn't always come across as quite so polemical and was more open to genuine dialogue with others, but then I guess he's a man on a mission.
I doubt whether he'd be able to shake SusanDoris' disbelief in God but then, she's already dug her heels in.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's all post-hoc. Finding reasons to justify your disposition. Which has nothing to do with reason. My disposition is to love Dawkins. I have every sympathy with him. More. WLC can be as slick as he likes, it's on a false premiss if it's more than a flip of a coin.
Dawkins has nothing to defend. Furthermore I find his morality far more Christian than all but mere Christianity.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
How is an idea "spreading" different than a meme "self-replicating"? Those seem to be describing the same thing.
They are describing the same thing. So why invent the words 'meme' and say that they're 'self-replicating' when all Dawkins is saying is that ideas spread? Apparently it's a way of applying Darwinian theory to culture. Positing the existence of self-replicating memes will provide the basis for a breakthrough in sociology and cultural studies; that is to say, we'll get a breakthrough in sociology and cultural studies if we posit that ideas spread.
Either 'memes self-replicate' means something different from 'ideas spread', in which case it's open to criticism, or it's describing the same thing as 'ideas spread' in which case it's a truism masquerading as an insight in parascientific dress.
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all post-hoc. Finding reasons to justify your disposition. Which has nothing to do with reason.
I'm not sure that something being post-hoc has to isolate it from reason.
Why do I believe in relativity? Because someone passed the knowledge down to me and I adopted it. If someone challenges me on that belief I might then read about the experimental or theoretical evidence behind it to justify holding it and I would find that a perfectly reasonable activity to engage in.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Apples and chalk.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either 'memes self-replicate' means something different from 'ideas spread', in which case it's open to criticism, or it's describing the same thing as 'ideas spread' in which case it's a truism masquerading as an insight in parascientific dress.
Choosing to say that memes 'self-replicate' is a bit of a giveaway. Something can't 'self-replicate' unless it has an independent existence of its own, capable of doing the replication. But if it does, there has to be a medium within which it exists objectively. Human beings, animals etc self-replicate in the material world. But even ideas, yet alone memes, don't have that sort of an existence in the material world.
If they do not objectively exist, that destroys everything Dawkins claims for them. If they do, then there has to be some non-material reality within which they have an objective existence. That, though, is incompatible with the Dawkins world view.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I know that he's aroused particular ire amongst atheists with his defence of some of the 'genocides' in the Jewish Bible (OT).
Opinion seems to vary with regard to his philosophical arguments, for example, kalam. Some people rate him highly as a philosopher, others seem to say that he's full of sophistry.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
On the other hand, if Dawkins' quotes of Craig's arguments are accurate then Craig may have some odd ideas about OT genocide.
May I suggest you follow
this link
I’d like you to listen to the entire 12 minutes but if you start at around 9:10 and listen for one minute you’ll get the essence if not the context.
Warning – the clip features William Lane Craig explaining that it was the Israelites’ moral duty to slaughter children and is accompanied by additional material that some will find distressing.
A simple extrapolation of his words suggest that he would be morally obligated to watch his mother/sister/son/dog (I know not if he has any of these but you get my drift) slowly and painfully starve to death over a period of weeks if his god told him to do so.
I offer no opinion – I hope none is required.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Or to put it another way, "memes" are an example of the fallacy of hypostasization - a regular accusation of atheists towards theists. Perhaps Dr. Occam could be called upon to adjudicate, as ever.
I'm not sure that memes would enable Darwinian thought to culture - if anything they would be Lamarckian in type.
(I have never heard of this guy either, and that sort of discussion is not normally of much interest to me so my lack of knowledge is hardly surprising.)
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions.
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. You seem to be suggesting that WLC’s debate style and “short-form apologetics” are not truly reflective of his underlying thoughts because he seeks popular approval. Assuming that his debates are financially rewarded (directly or indirectly) such a suggestion is, is it not, tantamount to accusing him of manipulating/misrepresenting his beliefs for financial gain and/or public recognition.
The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions. From what I’ve seen WLC’s conclusions are simple – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect. The rest appears to be convoluted obfuscation intended to obscure his opening position – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect (a structure into which his persistent use of the kalam cosmological argument fits effortlessly).
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government. But like QT debates give an opportunity to state sincerely held beliefs. Modifying one’s beliefs for public consumption may be a necessary evil for politicians but it’s still an evil, and doing so when claiming to define/defend morality would not be just an evil – it would also be sanctimoniously hypocritical, wouldn't it?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I offer no opinion – I hope none is required.
Be honest: of course you offer an opinion. Your silence presents an opinion, as does the rhetoric in the rest of your post. And you're known on this message board as an atheist but also as someone who disapproves of the very idea of God or gods.
Anyway, this is a very instructive thread, as I don't know anything about this fellow William Lane Craig. He sounds like an evangelical who's a bit too clever and cocky for mainstream tastes. Perhaps what America needs is a more moderate Christian who can debate clever atheists yet still come across as humble and friendly. Is there anyone in the wings? I hear that Rowan Williams (ex-ABofC) debated Craig a while back. Maybe he could do more of that sort of thing now he has a less stressful job.
[ 04. July 2013, 00:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I find strange, debates between atheists and theists. Is faith so fickle?
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. You seem to be suggesting that WLC’s debate style and “short-form apologetics” are not truly reflective of his underlying thoughts because he seeks popular approval. Assuming that his debates are financially rewarded (directly or indirectly) such a suggestion is, is it not, tantamount to accusing him of manipulating/misrepresenting his beliefs for financial gain and/or public recognition.
The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions. From what I’ve seen WLC’s conclusions are simple – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect. The rest appears to be convoluted obfuscation intended to obscure his opening position – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect (a structure into which his persistent use of the kalam cosmological argument fits effortlessly).
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government. But like QT debates give an opportunity to state sincerely held beliefs. Modifying one’s beliefs for public consumption may be a necessary evil for politicians but it’s still an evil, and doing so when claiming to define/defend morality would not be just an evil – it would also be sanctimoniously hypocritical, wouldn't it?
You could learn to quote properly, that's just a mess to try to respond to.
I'm not suggesting anything in particular about his beliefs, just that they have a technically philosophical basis. Who said anything about "modifying beliefs for public consumption"? Certainly wasn't me, nor did I imply it.
And FWIW, "simple" is what conclusions usually are, compared to the argument behind them. I don't know what you're protesting.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
On the other hand, if Dawkins' quotes of Craig's arguments are accurate then Craig may have some odd ideas about OT genocide.
May I suggest you follow
this link
I’d like you to listen to the entire 12 minutes but if you start at around 9:10 and listen for one minute you’ll get the essence if not the context.
I get the essence that the video editor is cutting and pasting from many different sources to create a certain impression. The few seconds of Craig at 9:10 is brief, and stripped of all context. My questions would be: where was Craig making these comments, and for what purpose, and how did it fit into his overall argument? It's impossible to tell from the link - even less so than from Dawkins' selective quote-mining in the article I linked to. A useless video to link to I'm afraid, and not worth my time to watch it all the way through.
But of course, it is entirely possible that Craig feels he is forced by his faith in a literal Bible and his belief in a morally perfect God to attempt a justification of the Biblical record of God's command of genocide. If so, he may be making a worthy attempt to square this moral circle, despite anything he says, however rigorously defended, being utter anathema to those who don't share his beliefs in the first place.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I find strange, debates between atheists and theists. Is faith so fickle?
How does a debate between an atheist and a theist indicate that faith is fickle? Perhaps the opposite is true - the theist feels that their faith is strong enough to deal with formal attacks from an atheist opponent. It depends on who 'wins' the debate, doesn't it?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
As for the knowledge he gives, I was referring to knowledge of what people like you, and the even more aggressive variety of atheist believe about Christianity, ..
Thank you for your reply and I do appreciate that this thread is about WLC in particular
However, . that's a really interesting comment and I wonder could you please expand on this? What do you think atheists like me believe about Christianity? quote:
...along with considered responses that hold water. The point is that a young person faced for the first time with a **clever sounding statement like "of course there is no proof that Jesus even existed" is easily thrown off balance and persuaded to give up her faith.
I think it would depend how the information was presented. Do you agree that young people should learn, from an early age, to think critically, and to investigate the pros and cons of the statement so that they can choose for themselves,
**why 'clever-sounding'? quote:
But if she expects to meet that argument, and is prepared with knowledge of how historical data is collected and assessed, she might be able to enter into a meaningful discussion on the topic.
I agree they should learn how history is recorded and the errors that can creep in.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Apollogies in advance for a bit of selective quoting! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by markporter: Craig is a bit cocky ... ... the cockiness represents his view of the weakness of the opposing arguments ... .... polemical ... ...
Weakness? Huh!! quote:
I doubt whether he'd be able to shake SusanDoris' disbelief in God but then, she's already dug her heels in.
I dispute the 'dug her heels in' bit because if that were so, I wouldn't spend time reading with interest the many religious views expressed here.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I find strange, debates between atheists and theists. Is faith so fickle?
How does a debate between an atheist and a theist indicate that faith is fickle? Perhaps the opposite is true - the theist feels that their faith is strong enough to deal with formal attacks from an atheist opponent. It depends on who 'wins' the debate, doesn't it?
Watching a debate is akin to watching a football match*, you come away with a winner, but it does not change who you follow. Yet there are atheists and theist who crow victory as if it is important.
If your faith position is affected by a debate, you did not have a strong stand in the first.
*Actually, it is more akin to people attempting to decide which is better, football or rugby. So they get a representative from each sport and play tennis.
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Weakness? Huh!!
Sure—I'm not saying that opposing arguments are all weak but that Craig, from his position may well regard quite a few of them that way.
quote:
I dispute the 'dug her heels in' bit because if that were so, I wouldn't spend time reading with interest the many religious views expressed here.
It was a slightly provocative comment. When you said 'I doubt there will be anything that would change an atheist's lack of belief in any god.' and went in search of some anti-WLC arguments it rather gave me the impression that you'd made up your mind and didn't want it to be changed.
That's not to say that I'm any more open-minded, although I suppose I would have to admit that I have a fair number of doubts and that whilst I hold onto a particular faith position I'm aware that it sometimes feels fairly fragile.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But of course, it is entirely possible that Craig feels he is forced by his faith in a literal Bible and his belief in a morally perfect God to attempt a justification of the Biblical record of God's command of genocide. If so, he may be making a worthy attempt to square this moral circle, despite anything he says, however rigorously defended, being utter anathema to those who don't share his beliefs in the first place.
That seems to be essentially where he comes down in this essay. His pro-genocide position (or at least pro-certain-genocides position) seems to be based in part on a Christian version of the Führerprinzip, that everything is okay if you're just following orders, and in part on the idea that certain groups of people are so evil they can justly be collectively obliterated. He also has a bit about how it's a positive good to stab a young child through the face with a sword because then she'll go to heaven, whereas if you let her grow up as a heathen she'll likely suffer damnation after she hits some (unspecified by WLC) Age of Reason. Interestingly, despite arguing that killing someone while they're young is doing them a huge favor, he opposes legalized abortion.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's when he says that 'the death of these children was actually their salvation', that I have a tendency to retch.
Then he expresses compassion on those soldiers who killed the children, as it brutalized them. What?
This all seems very sick to me.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
markporter
Thankk you for response.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
As for the knowledge he gives, I was referring to knowledge of what people like you, and the even more aggressive variety of atheist believe about Christianity, ..
Thank you for your reply and I do appreciate that this thread is about WLC in particular
However, . that's a really interesting comment and I wonder could you please expand on this? What do you think atheists like me believe about Christianity? quote:
...along with considered responses that hold water. The point is that a young person faced for the first time with a **clever sounding statement like "of course there is no proof that Jesus even existed" is easily thrown off balance and persuaded to give up her faith.
I think it would depend how the information was presented. Do you agree that young people should learn, from an early age, to think critically, and to investigate the pros and cons of the statement so that they can choose for themselves,
**why 'clever-sounding'? quote:
But if she expects to meet that argument, and is prepared with knowledge of how historical data is collected and assessed, she might be able to enter into a meaningful discussion on the topic.
I agree they should learn how history is recorded and the errors that can creep in.
Well, you obviously believe religious beliefs are untrue, and you have reasons for holding to that belief. Materialism, scientism andso-on. Those reasons should be presented to people from an early age, along with the beliefs of Christians, together with the rational basis for those, so that as you say, the young person can make up their own mind. Any belief, whether in God or against Him, can only be held in the face of opposition if the believer has come to their position by their own thought process.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If your faith position is affected by a debate, you did not have a strong stand in the first.
Probably true. The link posted in the OP made reference to young evangelical men who were on the verge of being squeezed out of their faith when they discovered Craig. This probably isn't due entirely to his debates - the man's an academic with a bunch of books to his name, after all! - but I'm sure they helped.
As a Christian myself, and someone knows about doubt, I can hardly complain that a good communicator and respected scholar helps a few young Christians to hold on to their faith, even if he does nothing for committed atheists. One man can't do everything!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
That is simply not true. I mean its so obviously not true that I can't imagine what mental confusion might have led you to saying it. It approaches the category of "not even wrong".
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's when he says that 'the death of these children was actually their salvation', that I have a tendency to retch.
Then he expresses compassion on those soldiers who killed the children, as it brutalized them. What?
This all seems very sick to me.
Well, the brutalising effect of war is a real problem. Soldiers with PTSD are not undeserving of sympathy I think.
If Craig can genuinely believe that the children were not being brutally hurt but rather being translated to glory at the point of the sword then this is a nice get-out. It does kind of solve the ethics problem (if you ignore the fact that they may not have died instantly, but may have suffered considerably first). However it's not shown in the Biblical story that this was part of the Israelites' theology at all. This is just a post hoc justification Craig is trying to shoehorn in, in order to defend the otherwise indefensible. If this is the usual quality of his argument I'm not very impressed. Perhaps he was having a bad day when he came up with this?
In the OP, there's a quote from Craig's late PhD supervisor who descibed him as among the top three students of his teaching career, even while describing Craig's "extreme theological conservatism" as in at least one respect "horrific" and generally indicative of "a startling lack of connection with the modern world." I think this RF essay shows this aspect of him quite well unfortunately. Not to say this is all he is of course.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Hawk
That's an interesting point about the contemporary (Jewish) theological take on the children being killed. What would it be? Would it be annihilation?
I suppose Craig would say that we now know that God would take them to glory, even if the Jews then did not know this?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
That is simply not true. I mean its so obviously not true that I can't imagine what mental confusion might have led you to saying it. It approaches the category of "not even wrong".
Ken, I disagree. However, I'd admit that I am no more than a public bar philosopher. If you know of a realm within a solely material universe, in which a meme can have an objective existence, I would be grateful of an explanation.
A materialist believes, I would assume, that only the material universe exists. That which is material in some way, measurable, accessible to scientific experiment etc. is the only 'real' reality, even if there are parts of it that human beings have not yet managed to access or explain.
Where, in that universe are ideas? They may be in peoples' heads, but they are not tangible, material or measurable. In that sense, they do not have a 'real' existence. By so much more, neither do hypostases or memes. Giving them any of the attributes of an independent reality, even metaphorically, is misleading or delusional.
As a Christian, I accept that there is a spiritual realm that is as real as the material one - indeed, my personal view is that they are all one reality. But the Dawkins picture of reality cannot allow for that.
As it happens, and as a digression, I also do not see any reason to believe memes have any 'real' existence. I can however conceive that it is just possible Dawkins might be trying to explain from the evidence of what he sees around him, something of how principalities and powers behave, that memes might be the equivalent of late pre-Copernican explanations of the movement of the spheres, without having to throw away one's treasured belief in the spheres - or in this case their absence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, playing devil's advocate, a materialist can simply say that ideas are neural pathways or patterns.
Or, if you are into emergentism, you could argue that when neurons are arranged in a certain way, they give rise to mental properties.
Well, there are other ways of expressing this. I suppose they tend to sound like get-out clauses, maybe, to slither round the awkward existence of experiences.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Enoch, they exist in people's minds. Mind to the materialist (and FWIW I agree) is an emergent property of a complex brain; that it is not in and of itself a physical entity does not stop it being part of a material universe and does not in any way mean it isn't real. Even to a materialist.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose Craig would say that we now know that God would take them to glory, even if the Jews then did not know this?
So if the voices in your head tell you to "kill them all", you should just assume they know it'll all work out in the end? That seems . . . very dangerous.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
If Craig can genuinely believe that the children were not being brutally hurt but rather being translated to glory at the point of the sword then this is a nice get-out. It does kind of solve the ethics problem (if you ignore the fact that they may not have died instantly, but may have suffered considerably first). However it's not shown in the Biblical story that this was part of the Israelites' theology at all.
But Craig is a Christian, not an Israelite, so he's under no obligation to propose an Israelite solution to the problem.
I've never heard Craig's debates, but his arguments about the slaughter proceeding from Israelite battles sound like something I've read in a Lee Strobel book. This stuff is highly unlikely to satisfy atheists or many moderate Christians, but what's the liberal or moderate Christian response to the apparently divinely sanctioned violence conducted by the Israelites? How would you deal with Dawkins if he brought this up in a debate?
Not all 'liberal' theology is the same, of course. African American Black theology, which is usually grouped under liberal theology, or more specifically, liberation theology, is far less squeamish about God's OT wrath than liberal theology as understood in a white context. (If you listen to some of the fiery sermons of Pres. Obama's former minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright you'll see what I mean.) This is probably because engaging in the historical struggle for liberation in the American context inevitably involved the killing of innocent children.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is probably because engaging in the historical struggle for liberation in the American context inevitably involved the killing of innocent children.
I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between something that "inevitably" kills children and something that deliberately kills children.
And just out of curiosity, why the modifier "innocent" in front of "children"? Are there guilty infants it's okay to kill?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a Christian, I accept that there is a spiritual realm that is as real as the material one ...
The question that springs immediately to my mind is, 'But why?' I am not, however, asking for an answer, as you go on to say: quote:
- indeed, my personal view is that they are all one reality. But the Dawkins picture of reality cannot allow for that.
The amount of 'space' for 'all one reality'for me, and RD I suppose, does not need to be sort of divided into spiritual and material. It's all material and just because ideas are in minds, does not lessen the effect they have when they are developed into all the useful things we have today.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is probably because engaging in the historical struggle for liberation in the American context inevitably involved the killing of innocent children.
I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between something that "inevitably" kills children and something that deliberately kills children.
And just out of curiosity, why the modifier "innocent" in front of "children"? Are there guilty infants it's okay to kill?
'Innocent' is added for emphasis, rather like 'beautiful bride' - aren't all brides beautiful?
As for deliberately killing children, weren't the Israelites sometimes instructed to kill everyone in a given area or tribe? This included children, but the children weren't deliberately targeted. I understand that sometimes the goal was to ensure that noone would be left either to seek revenge, or to reconstitute the bleak tribal culture that had been deliberately destroyed.
In other cases, warfare would occur presumably after negotiation and a period of declining relations; in this case, there would be time for some of the women and children to get away before an invading army arrived.
Nevertheless, all war is brutal, and history is written by the victors. It would be interesting to know about the various policies and strategies used in ancient Israel during times of war. When did the Israelites take children as slaves, and when did they kill them? When were the women taken as wives, and when were they slaughtered? Why would God (if the OT claims that God had anything to do with it) sometimes have preferred one outcome rather than another?
[ 04. July 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for deliberately killing children, weren't the Israelites sometimes instructed to kill everyone in a given area or tribe?
Perhaps - but what relevance does this have to black liberation in America?
On what occasions did "engaging in the historical struggle for liberation in the American context inevitably involve[d] the killing of innocent children"?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for deliberately killing children, weren't the Israelites sometimes instructed to kill everyone in a given area or tribe?
Perhaps - but what relevance does this have to black liberation in America?
On what occasions did "engaging in the historical struggle for liberation in the American context inevitably involve[d] the killing of innocent children"?
For African American history you need to look for the appropriate websites, but note that liberation struggles - uprisings - by black slaves against their slave owners would have lead to the deaths of some white children.
You've heard of the negro spiritual 'Let my people go'. Although explicitly based on the Bible Exodus story, it's also an example of black slaves reading themselves into the text. Proponents of Black theology validate this practice, and they see the punishment meted out by God on Israel's enemies in the OT as the potential outcome for iniquitous nations that have failed to repent of their oppression and subjugation of others in the past and who continue to oppress and subjugate today.
Punishing a nation, however, involves not simply picking off the leaders, but has a serious impact on ordinary people. This is why leaders bear a terrible burden. They're responsible not just for their own skins, but for the safety of their people. If they're figureheads and role models then it shouldn't be surprising if their people - and eventually their young children - follow them in their righteousness or their iniquity. Otherwise, why do we need leaders? Why not just have a faceless committee?
While the horror of parts of the OT can't be denied, I think Christianity risks losing something if Christians try to take away the possibility that God can exercise heavy judgment on a reckless, wicked nation of selfish and destructive people who are raising their children in the same selfish and destructive path. But I don't know if any of the clergy at any of the churches I attend would agree with me.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm losing my religion.
I see in the pre-incarnate Son - YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses et al - the express image of Jesus for the first time clearly. Is that real? If so, then the Old Testament isn't. But the people who wrote it were. Whoever they were. Real in their beliefs. Real in their encounters with YHWH?
I have been WLC and better - with at least 20 IQ points less I'm sure, but he's a damnationist I reckon and that's just evil if so - Dawkins has the moral high ground (I sneered at his views on crime and punishment a few years ago ...). I have championed the pragmatism of God as liberally as it is possible to do here for 12 years. And it now seems liberally, truly, emotionally impossible to do.
Michael Stipe sang my song and I sneered as he
was 'queer' - his word. I sneer no more. That's all part of the same journey.
If Genesis and Exodus and Joshua and Judges ... Job ... are valid accounts of God the Killer, WLC is not His effective apologist.
It is impossible to be God's apologist if He is not the express image of Jesus.
The God of the Old Testament is not. He quenches smoking reeds.
Unless I'm missing something.
What could I be missing about Jesus? I see Him more clearly than ever thanks to Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Peter Rollins, Greg Boyd, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Henri Nouwen.
Who here doesn't?
Are they wrong? Are we wrong? Is it possible to see God the Killer in Jesus? With the right to kill laid down?
I'm in tears for many things over the past half dozen years. Or my tears find reasons to fall more like. This is one of them.
WLC has no answers on this score. None at all. Suffering I understand - there is no alternative. But God the Killer no longer understand and neither does anyone else.
Even if He is. That all too credible incredible gunslinger who stopped by with Abraham at the terebinth trees of Mamre.
Part of me hopes we'll never know. Never need to know. Heaven come down will be that good.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*Actually, it is more akin to people attempting to decide which is better, football or rugby. So they get a representative from each sport and play tennis.
Best. metaphor. ever.
quote:
Originally posted by David:
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions.
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government.
I agree with David here. I haven't kept up with Christian philosophy of religion since the '90s (when I subscribed to both Faith and Philosophy and Philosophia Christi), but I do recall WLC being a very well-respected figure in that field. I'm not familiar with his debating - I only knew him from his articles, which, whether or not you agreed with him, were proper analytic philosophy.
(One thing I can't remember, though - it is he that was nicknamed "the machine in the ghost"? I may be confusing him with someone else on that one, since I never saw him speak. I remember a friend of mine, who went to the conferences in this field, saying that about one of the major figures in the field.)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I must say, if I ever have to read another long debate over kalam, I may give up on life's meaning.
This is the main thing I remember him for. I guess that's the only debate form I've "seen" him in - the back-and-forth of scholarly articles in a journal. If I hadn't donated all my copies of Faith and Philosophy and Philosophia Christi to a seminary in Burma that lost their library in a tsunami, I could go look up that particular debate...
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Innocent' is added for emphasis, rather like 'beautiful bride' - aren't all brides beautiful?
No.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Churchgeek
No, no, no! You're supposed to say that all women look wonderful on their wedding day! They only look peculiar about ten years later, when fashions have changed! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously though, going back to Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard's post, ISTM that God is indeed God the Killer. If he both gives and takes away life, how can he avoid that title? Jesus dies in the NT, as do other people. Whether or not God speaks in audible words, whether he sends an army of pastoralists across a desert with spears, or you're in a hospital bed in 2013, or in an domestic dispute in 2012 - isn't it still all a case of God taking away?
Some atheists have called Christianity a death cult, because its central figure died a horrible death that Christians commemorate every time they meet. But everyone dies. If there's an all-powerful God that has to be his call.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm losing my religion.
I see in the pre-incarnate Son - YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses et al - the express image of Jesus for the first time clearly. Is that real? If so, then the Old Testament isn't. But the people who wrote it were. Whoever they were. Real in their beliefs. Real in their encounters with YHWH?
I have been WLC and better - with at least 20 IQ points less I'm sure, but he's a damnationist I reckon and that's just evil if so - Dawkins has the moral high ground (I sneered at his views on crime and punishment a few years ago ...). I have championed the pragmatism of God as liberally as it is possible to do here for 12 years. And it now seems liberally, truly, emotionally impossible to do.
Michael Stipe sang my song and I sneered as he
was 'queer' - his word. I sneer no more. That's all part of the same journey.
If Genesis and Exodus and Joshua and Judges ... Job ... are valid accounts of God the Killer, WLC is not His effective apologist.
It is impossible to be God's apologist if He is not the express image of Jesus.
The God of the Old Testament is not. He quenches smoking reeds.
Unless I'm missing something.
What could I be missing about Jesus? I see Him more clearly than ever thanks to Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Peter Rollins, Greg Boyd, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Henri Nouwen.
Who here doesn't?
Are they wrong? Are we wrong? Is it possible to see God the Killer in Jesus? With the right to kill laid down?
I'm in tears for many things over the past half dozen years. Or my tears find reasons to fall more like. This is one of them.
WLC has no answers on this score. None at all. Suffering I understand - there is no alternative. But God the Killer no longer understand and neither does anyone else.
Even if He is. That all too credible incredible gunslinger who stopped by with Abraham at the terebinth trees of Mamre.
Part of me hopes we'll never know. Never need to know. Heaven come down will be that good.
It's God who is the judge of us, and we want him to be. We want evil to be destroyed. We don't want people to be destroyed. We see that we all have failings. So does God.
The Old Testament points to the New Testament, and vice versa. The stories are useful for their impact on us. How many of us happily watch films and plays in which people are killed, and as long as the good guy wins out in the end we're happy. There's blood everywhere, but good must win. If it doesn't, we're left restless and want a sequel in which good will win.
If WLC tries to justify the killing of innocents past or present, of course we will rightly rail against it, whether or not we believe in God. Those who want to believe that God is not good will undoubtedly use whatever texts they can to back up their view, as we do who love God knowing that God is good. There we have it. Do we know that God is good? I do. I would fail to persuade anyone in a debate with that statement, and yet it's the truth.
We need more polemicists imv, those who are able to stand up to the people who try to discredit God's good name, or to pooh pooh the very possibility of God's existence. God is. God is good. God is love. And the good guy will win, in the end.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I offer no opinion – I hope none is required.
Be honest: of course you offer an opinion. Your silence presents an opinion, ...................
Of course I have an opinion. I tried to express it and finding I was unable adequately to convey my disgust and repugnance, decided to rely on the revulsion that I expected most shippies would feel when faced with WLC’s actual words.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Enoch, they exist in people's minds. Mind to the materialist (and FWIW I agree) is an emergent property of a complex brain; that it is not in and of itself a physical entity does not stop it being part of a material universe and does not in any way mean it isn't real. Even to a materialist.
Sometimes stated as “Mind is what the brain does” ?
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Churchgeek
Seriously though, going back to Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard's post, ISTM that God is indeed God the Killer. If he both gives and takes away life, how can he avoid that title?
But everyone dies. If there's an all-powerful God that has to be his call.
Hoping that this is a relevant tangent and leaving aside all the reasons for doubting the existence of an all-powerful god
This is something I have, even when a believing child, genuinely failed to understand. Is it another christian jargonesque misuse of the English language similar to “I know in my heart”? If I give you a tenner for your birthday it becomes yours – I don’t have the right to demand repayment, with or without a period of notice. It’s yours and you can do as you wish with it unless you accept limitations imposed and agreed prior to acceptance of the tenner.
If your god gives life surely it becomes the recipient’s life and they can do as they want with it, including finishing it before disease, accident, old age etc. removes the choice.
If god retained the option to remove life
a) That would constitute a conditional loan rather than a gift, would it not? So it should be “god lends life and takes it back when he feels like it” - and
b) Would he not have a moral responsibility to require repayment in a way which avoided unnecessary distress etc. (as we impose regulation on those who need to end the life of creatures necessarily used in experimental research).
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
There seems to be a persistent myth underpinning much of the argument from outrage above that people, even innocent children, aren't going to die anyway. It would be useful for people to re-read that article with this in mind.
I don't agree with much of that article by the way, because I don't accept some of his presuppositions. Comments like this:
quote:
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.
are no doubt difficult to swallow, but it follows perfectly well from his argument.
Naturally, if you hold to the idea that there is no afterlife, or that everyone's going to hell if they don't say some particular version of the believer's prayer, this episode becomes repugnant. But I think it's just too damned easy to suggest a set of moral standards adopted from an easy life can be so easily imposed on a completely different situation in order to make judgements about individual or group actions.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
But I think it's just too damned easy to suggest a set of moral standards adopted from an easy life can be so easily imposed on a completely different situation in order to make judgements about individual or group actions.
WLC (whom this thread is about) clearly expects that any instruction from his god is to be undertaken because failure to do so would constitute immorality. That is what he says.
Any. instruction. whatsoever.
He seems to believe that his god unmistakably spoke to the Israelites and that he can so speak again – perhaps to WLC himself, and if he does speak to WLC the clear implication is that WLC will willingly and unquestioningly carry out any instruction, however horrific you and I might consider it, without any moral qualms or regret.
How do you define “psychopath”?
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
But I think it's just too damned easy to suggest a set of moral standards adopted from an easy life can be so easily imposed on a completely different situation in order to make judgements about individual or group actions.
WLC (whom this thread is about) clearly expects that any instruction from his god is to be undertaken because failure to do so would constitute immorality. That is what he says.
Any. instruction. whatsoever.
He seems to believe that his god unmistakably spoke to the Israelites and that he can so speak again – perhaps to WLC himself, and if he does speak to WLC the clear implication is that WLC will willingly and unquestioningly carry out any instruction, however horrific you and I might consider it, without any moral qualms or regret.
How do you define “psychopath”?
Would you PLEASE stop quoting in that fashion? It makes it impossible to requote you alone. There's a Styx thread that you can practice on if it's too difficult.
The argument that underpins this is: if the source of your morality is God, and God says to do something, then by definition it can't be immoral. Probably if you do a simple search on his site there will be an argument to support that conclusion. Perhaps deal with that directly.
It's a mistake to read more into it than that, such as suggesting someone would do so "without any moral qualms or regrets". In fact, he suggests quite the opposite to that. Note that I'm not actually defending him, even if I agreed with a everything he said I'm positive he could do a far more comprehensive job than me.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for deliberately killing children, weren't the Israelites sometimes instructed to kill everyone in a given area or tribe?
Perhaps - but what relevance does this have to black liberation in America?
On what occasions did "engaging in the historical struggle for liberation in the American context inevitably involve[d] the killing of innocent children"?
For African American history you need to look for the appropriate websites,
I don't see any particular reason why I should go searching for evidence to support your assertions. quote:
but note that liberation struggles - uprisings - by black slaves against their slave owners would have lead to the deaths of some white children.
Well, it would lead to the deaths of white children if the rebels decided to "kill all the white people", including women and children. But there's nothing inevitable about that; and I seriously doubt that black Christians in America today are so approving of those actions of Nat Turner's followers ("Ten of the children were decapitated and their headless bodies piled in the front yard." ibid) that it would explain their (alleged) greater tolerance for OT atrocities.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
SvilanaV2, God giving and taking away in His providence is not the same as Him ordering genocide. There can certainly be metanarratives where He does both and I used to be an apologist for one. WLC is - apparently - a damnationist apologist for another.
In the former He is incidental Killer, there is no other way and He is in fact innocent. In the latter He is not.
WLC has no justification of that beyond appeal to the ineffable, to God being perfect and good and therefore anything He commands is.
That doesn't wash. It did for Jews 3500 years ago and nearly all other cultures since. But not here. No longer in my head. And there is no going back.
There is bowing the knee in ignorance. Nothing more.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Dave
You can look for websites on African American history if you're interested in African American history. If that subject is of no interest to you then you won't. I brought the subject into the debate simply to move things on from 'isn't the OT awful' to 'how might certain communities in certain contexts find the OT instructive?' We're free to take it or leave it.
I'll post a link to something by James Cone or Jeremiah Wright if anyone's interested.
As regards this:
quote:
Well, it would lead to the deaths of white children if the rebels decided to "kill all the white people", including women and children. But there's nothing inevitable about that; and I seriously doubt that black Christians in America today are so approving of those actions of Nat Turner's followers ("Ten of the children were decapitated and their headless bodies piled in the front yard." ibid) that it would explain their (alleged) greater tolerance for OT atrocities.
I think you're forgetting that these slaves would themselves have had children taken from them, brutalised and, yes, even murdered. If they'd saved the lives of these white children they would almost certainly have grown up to do the same to future generations of black slave children, or to support other white slave owners who did so; that was how their society was structured. It must be hard to see children as innocent when you can see what they're going to grow up into - especially in societies where childhood was short. A white child was entitled to curse and abuse a black slave of any age, and this child would have been taught early on in life that this power was right and natural.
Back slaves being murderous towards white slave masters' children needs to be understood in this light. And so maybe there is also a context to be understood in the light of the brutality of Israelite armies. I'm not saying that we Christians in our comfortable and civilised state have to approve; we simply have to understand. It would be nice if a mainstream theologian could help us.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard
So we can cope with God as an incidental Killer. But isn't God Lord and Master of all? How can anything he does or allows be incidental?
I understand that some theologians propose that God is in fact weak. I don't know how they explain this, but it does get us around these problems - while creating others, ISTM.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Dave
You can look for websites on African American history if you're interested in African American history. If that subject is of no interest to you then you won't.
Please stop trying to pass off your failure to provide support for your own assertions as a lack of interest in African American history on my part. quote:
As regards this:
quote:
Well, it would lead to the deaths of white children if the rebels decided to "kill all the white people", including women and children. But there's nothing inevitable about that; and I seriously doubt that black Christians in America today are so approving of those actions of Nat Turner's followers ("Ten of the children were decapitated and their headless bodies piled in the front yard." ibid) that it would explain their (alleged) greater tolerance for OT atrocities.
I think you're forgetting that these slaves would themselves have had children taken from them, brutalised and, yes, even murdered. If they'd saved the lives of these white children they would almost certainly have grown up to do the same to future generations of black slave children, or to support other white slave owners who did so; that was how their society was structured.
You're now confusing revenge and effective revolt; but there's nothing in the former (however understandable) that implies the latter. The slave revolts in the American South that occurred would have failed with or without the killing of children that took place; and had the revolts been of a sufficient scale to succeed, the killing of children would have been no more inevitable than the Union armies killing all white children in the South.
quote:
And so maybe there is also a context to be understood in the light of the brutality of Israelite armies. I'm not saying that we Christians in our comfortable and civilised state have to approve; we simply have to understand. It would be nice if a mainstream theologian could help us.
Nobody's surprised that some individuals among an oppressed people might commit atrocities against their oppressor (though prior oppression isn't clearly the situation in all the OT genocides); the objection is to the sanctification of the act, and to your suggestion that killing children is/was/would have been an "inevitable" part of a particular liberation struggle.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
If'n you're in the creatin' business this is the only way it can be. This bein' thu supernatural creaded realm (angelic) unless that's all meddaphoric and the natural.
Suff'rin' cain't be avorded. Fer all concerned.
Its contingent.
But drowning worlds, nuking cities, raining fire, sending plagues, ordering death penalties and genocide aren't.
They are choices beyond mere creation. Apples and chalk.
It's really, really simple SvitlanaV2. And I really, really like you (I know, I know, boy were you in trouble if YHWH liked you).
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
There seems to be a persistent myth underpinning much of the argument from outrage above that people, even innocent children, aren't going to die anyway. It would be useful for people to re-read that article with this in mind.
I don't agree with much of that article by the way, because I don't accept some of his presuppositions. Comments like this:
quote:
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.
are no doubt difficult to swallow, but it follows perfectly well from his argument.
Naturally, if you hold to the idea that there is no afterlife, or that everyone's going to hell if they don't say some particular version of the believer's prayer, this episode becomes repugnant. But I think it's just too damned easy to suggest a set of moral standards adopted from an easy life can be so easily imposed on a completely different situation in order to make judgements about individual or group actions.
Here's what an atheist philosopher thinks about Craig's argument (whilst, for the sake if balance, bashing some New Atheist drivel).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Dave W.
Links to Cone and Wright can be provided on request.
quote:
You're now confusing revenge and effective revolt; but there's nothing in the former (however understandable) that implies the latter. The slave revolts in the American South that occurred would have failed with or without the killing of children that took place; and had the revolts been of a sufficient scale to succeed, the killing of children would have been no more inevitable than the Union armies killing all white children in the South.
ISTM that the bloodshed required to obtain permanent freedom for the slaves would have had to be violent in a way that would have included the killing of children; it would have involved burning down homes, shooting at moving wagons, killing young boys who had been armed with guns, etc. Some children would probably have been killed because the alternative would have meant feeding and sheltering them, when the slaves could not even ensure the safety of their own children at this time. And always there would be the fear that the slave masters' children would remain loyal to their parents' upbringing - especially since there were other colonies in the Americas that would have eagerly helped them to put down slave revolts. Still, some slaves, particularly house slaves, were loyal to their masters' families, and would have tried to save whom they could.
(These are my opinions, based on what I've read. Links to discussions about the short and long term success of slave revolts and reasons for eventual abolition of slavery can be provided on request.)
quote:
Nobody's surprised that some individuals among an oppressed people might commit atrocities against their oppressor (though prior oppression isn't clearly the situation in all the OT genocides); the objection is to the sanctification of the act, and to your suggestion that killing children is/was/would have been an "inevitable" part of a particular liberation struggle.
It's not inevitable if you have a successful period of negotiation first. It's not inevitable if you limit your battles to the battlefield. But as terrorists/freedom fighters say, their enemies often don't respect them enough to face them this way.
World War II, a supposedly legitimate war, left the battlefield and entered people's homes. Children live in homes, so it's hard to argue that Churchill didn't see attacking women, the elderly and children as the means to weakening German resolve and to bringing an end to the war. Yet Churchill is praised as a great leader.
There's war all around us as we speak. We act as if the world is far more civilised than any Bronze Age God of wrath, yet children (probably far more of them, since the world is more heavily populated now) are still being sacrificed in wars that don't comprise of adult warriors facing each other on a battlefield, or in the sea or air. How much negotiation has gone on in each case? Apparently the Canaanites had a few centuries to stop whatever it was they were doing wrong; if we're better than the God of wrath maybe we should leave it that long before we start shooting off drones that kill children or dropping bombs into civilian areas....!
I'm still waiting for the theologians here to cut through my amateur 'assertions' and explain to me what all that Canaanite business was for. Why is it in the Bible? What would you say to Dawkins that Craig didn't say?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If'n you're in the creatin' business this is the only way it can be. This bein' thu supernatural creaded realm (angelic) unless that's all meddaphoric and the natural.
Suff'rin' cain't be avorded. Fer all concerned.
Its contingent.
But drowning worlds, nuking cities, raining fire, sending plagues, ordering death penalties and genocide aren't.
They are choices beyond mere creation. Apples and chalk.
It's really, really simple SvitlanaV2. And I really, really like you (I know, I know, boy were you in trouble if YHWH liked you).
I'm glad you like me. You seem like a good egg yourself, but it's not that simply to me, no. Sometimes I feel out of sorts here. Not sufficiently liberal. Not properly conservative. Wrong social/cultural context, etc. etc.
But anyway, I'm basically having trouble with the implication here that God's really nice, therefore the nasty things that happen in the Bible (or in 'real life'?) have nothing to do with God. Who do they have something to do with, then? Satan? We're not supposed to believe in Satan any more, so that's obviously not the 'right' answer either.
What would you say to Dawkins, or to atheists on websites?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye SvitlanaV2. We all agree that the evil our beloved Caesars is not Christian. But is in the ball park of YHWH. So yeah, what's it there for?
Is YHWH the express image of Jesus plus or sans Killer?
That is the question.
And if He isn't, the Tanakh is, at best, our projection on Him.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Naturally, if you hold to the idea that there is no afterlife, or that everyone's going to hell if they don't say some particular version of the believer's prayer, this episode becomes repugnant. But I think it's just too damned easy to suggest a set of moral standards adopted from an easy life can be so easily imposed on a completely different situation in order to make judgements about individual or group actions.
Why not? WLC's morality is premised on the idea that moral standards adopted from a particularly harsh way of life can be easily imposed on a completely different situation. Is there any reason this couldn't be applied the other way that doesn't come down to special pleading?
I also question whether this type of analysis would be applied to any other situation. How many contemporary child murders would be considered justified under this rubric? Presumably God hasn't changed His mind about whether He should start roasting infants in Hell, so murdering children is still presumably still a tremendous benefit to them.
[ 05. July 2013, 18:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But anyway, I'm basically having trouble with the implication here that God's really nice, therefore the nasty things that happen in the Bible (or in 'real life'?) have nothing to do with God. Who do they have something to do with, then? Satan? We're not supposed to believe in Satan any more, so that's obviously not the 'right' answer either.
What would you say to Dawkins, or to atheists on websites?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I hope you'll allow me to throw my twopenneth in.
Part of the problem is this idea that we're not 'supposed' to believe in satan any more. Who says? If satan is the father of lies, as Jesus said, who has satan deceived? If we believe that God is good, and see that there is evil in the world, it follows that there is currently in the world that which is not of God. We may call it corruption, or the devil, or temptation, or all of those, but when we embrace them instead of God we perpetuate them. They are to do with us, and that impacts on God. But God loves us sufficiently to allow us to choose them over Him. He invites, but doesn't impose.
We can refuse God. The Israelites did it all the time. God forgave them, and gave them another chance. God is good.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I hope you'll allow me to throw my twopenneth in.
Part of the problem is this idea that we're not 'supposed' to believe in satan any more. Who says? If satan is the father of lies, as Jesus said, who has satan deceived? If we believe that God is good, and see that there is evil in the world, it follows that there is currently in the world that which is not of God.
Isn't the standard Christian line that Satan is God's creation? And if things exist which weren't created by God (e.g. Steve), where did they come from?
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I hope you'll allow me to throw my twopenneth in.
Part of the problem is this idea that we're not 'supposed' to believe in satan any more. Who says? If satan is the father of lies, as Jesus said, who has satan deceived? If we believe that God is good, and see that there is evil in the world, it follows that there is currently in the world that which is not of God.
Isn't the standard Christian line that Satan is God's creation? And if things exist which weren't created by God (e.g. Steve), where did they come from?
OK, first of all, thanks for the link to that bit about Steve. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
More to your question - traditionally, evil is understood as a lack. The "transcendentals" — goodness, being, unity, beauty, and truth — are all "convertible," which means that to the extent something is, it is good, beautiful, etc. Evil is a deprivation, corruption, or lack of being. It doesn't, and can't, have being of its own.
That's also why you can't write anyone off as pure evil. There's always goodness, beauty, truth, etc., in all of us; the question is how much we've allowed it to tarnish and corrode or, through the mercy of God, to be restored.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't the standard Christian line that Satan is God's creation?
If satan is a created being, then God would have created satan.
We were created by God and yet we are not perfectly good like God. Some think we were created perfect and were corrupted, others that we were a work in progress from the start, either way there is something of us which is not ' of God'. Whether evil is a lack of good or a corrupting influence or a destructive power, in the same way it is not 'of God' if it is not good.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Crœsos, I expect much better of you.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't the standard Christian line that Satan is God's creation? And if things exist which weren't created by God (e.g. Steve), where did they come from?
The standard Christian belief is that God created Lucifer (Satan) as a good creation. Lucifer/Satan made the choice to turn to evil.
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why not? WLC's morality is premised on the idea that moral standards adopted from a particularly harsh way of life can be easily imposed on a completely different situation. Is there any reason this couldn't be applied the other way that doesn't come down to special pleading?
I haven't seen where he say anything like that at all - have you got a link or a quote to that effect?
quote:
I also question whether this type of analysis would be applied to any other situation. How many contemporary child murders would be considered justified under this rubric? Presumably God hasn't changed His mind about whether He should start roasting infants in Hell, so murdering children is still presumably still a tremendous benefit to them.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is what Craig is saying??
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Crœsos - although Steve is brilliant.
David - your avatar. Me too. No matter the second rate arguments against WLC here, he is second rate. Dawkins is right.
The elephant in the room here is is God Killer? Is that one of the solely divine attributes - different from all the others - the Son laid down?
Because that fits the complex, strange, nightmare narrative simpler.
But makes God more complex. At best makes Him cruel to be kind. Not safe but good.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why not? WLC's morality is premised on the idea that moral standards adopted from a particularly harsh way of life can be easily imposed on a completely different situation. Is there any reason this couldn't be applied the other way that doesn't come down to special pleading?
I haven't seen where he say anything like that at all - have you got a link or a quote to that effect?
It's the underlying premise to his contention that genocidal bronze age tribesmen (the Israelites) have left us a moral code worth emulating.
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
I also question whether this type of analysis would be applied to any other situation. How many contemporary child murders would be considered justified under this rubric? Presumably God hasn't changed His mind about whether He should start roasting infants in Hell, so murdering children is still presumably still a tremendous benefit to them.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is what Craig is saying??
His argument is fairly straightforward.
quote:
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?
I'm pretty sure if confronted with a modern incident of child murder WLC would not apply this argument as to why the murderer is to be commended rather than condemned, which makes it a case of insincere special pleading. After all, the logic of the situation is exactly the same in the bronze age as it is in the twenty-first century.
- God sends dead children directly to heaven
- Going to heaven is actually an improvement over life on Earth
- Therefore anything or anyone which kills young children is actually doing them a favor
The fact that we presume WLC wouldn't make this case for anything other than his scriptures means this is insincerely offered special pleading.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*Actually, it is more akin to people attempting to decide which is better, football or rugby. So they get a representative from each sport and play tennis.
Best. metaphor. ever.
I know, right? That was brilliant.
And Martin PC - as usual I don't understand everything you are saying. But what I do think I'm seeing is extraordinary. to you. I'm pretty much in the place of bowing my knee in ignorance too.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That's because I don't understand it either Dark Knight!
I suppose it all comes down to can God be cruel to be kind?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's the underlying premise to his contention that genocidal bronze age tribesmen (the Israelites) have left us a moral code worth emulating.
I've read that link you posted and it doesn't imply this at all. Indeed, the author insists several times that these Bible passages offend our moral sensibilities, and our (Christian) understanding of God. Craig also says that what God does and what we have to do are two separate things.
This atheist idea that Christians are supposed to model themselves upon everything that happens in the OT has never made much sense to me. Maybe I've just attended the wrong churches!
quote:
- God sends dead children directly to heaven
- Going to heaven is actually an improvement over life on Earth
- Therefore anything or anyone which kills young children is actually doing them a favor
The fact that we presume WLC wouldn't make this case for anything other than his scriptures means this is insincerely offered special pleading.
As I said above, Craig doesn't argue that we're allowed to do whatever God does. Moreover, this list also completely ignores the contextualisation that Craig offers. In what context are children and parents of today in exactly the same state as the children and parents of Canaan? And in which modern situation has God explicitly commanded an OT response?
Interestingly, the question of what should be done to one group of innocent people in order to save other group of innocent people is apparently often used with young students in philosophy classes. Apparently, one such question is: 'If you had the chance to go back in history and to murder the baby Adolf Hitler, what would you do?' What's the 'correct' answer to this question? Should the 'atheist answer' be different from and more moral than the 'Christian answer'?
[ 07. July 2013, 12:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
We all know what the correct answer is regardless. If WLC doesn't say we should be like God, who does he say we should be like? If anyone? And why? Why shouldn't we be like, emulate God? If God's a killer who says kill then that's OK surely? But it's not OK to be like God sometimes? It's not OK to question when its OK to kill or not?
And what's being an atheist got to do with anything?
Oh, God changed His mind after becoming human? But only while being human? He assassinated Ananias and Sapphira and Herod Agrippa afterwards after all. No change there.
This is incoherent SvitlanaV2.
Unless God is very, very pragmatic indeed. Very, very other.
So, I tend to ignore Him outside of the incarnation now and see Him more clearly than ever in His pacifism and inclusion and dealing with people - including Himself - where they are.
Of course the Holy Spirit is of Christ.
[ 07. July 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We all know what the correct answer is regardless. If WLC doesn't say we should be like God, who does he say we should be like? If anyone? And why? Why shouldn't we be like, emulate God? If God's a killer who says kill then that's OK surely? But it's not OK to be like God sometimes? It's not OK to question when its OK to kill or not?
And what's being an atheist got to do with anything?
Oh, God changed His mind after becoming human? But only while being human? He assassinated Ananias and Sapphira and Herod Agrippa afterwards after all. No change there.
This is incoherent SvitlanaV2.
This may sound rather cheeky, but I don't know if you really ought to be accusing other people of being incoherent!
Sometimes I don't quite understand what you're getting at. But that could be due to my lack of proper theological training.
I suppose I'm thinking of Romans 12:19 and God's claim that 'Vengeance is mine'. He doesn't say that we should go off and enact vengeance on our own behalf, in order to be just like him. Of course, you may believe that the author of Romans is mistaken, and that God has no interest in vengeance of any kind. I have no idea what the text means by vengeance; but it's there nevertheless.
As for atheists, they often imply that their morality is purer and more honest than Christian morality. Since Craig's public opponents are often atheists, that seems relevant. But perhaps he should begin to conduct public debates with Christians instead.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That was a gift wasn't it SvitlanaV2? But there's incoherence and incoherence. I'm reflecting, mocking the incoherence of WLC and the 'traditional' view, that I have been a champion of par excellence, of God the Killer.
If God is a killer beyond incidentally in helpless providence, then that is an ineffable, senseless, arbitrary, meaningless, occult, inexplicable divine attribute. It cannot be justified and if it turns out to be so, it can't matter.
The biblical narrative is that He is. Consistently. Except when one of us. The bible is flat in that regard, there is no trajectory of extra-incarnate God being anything else but a killer, His deaths per hit rate drops until you get to Revelation.
That's why it's irrelevant what it looks like. Because in Jesus and for Christians, there is no killing, no condemnation, no coercion, no exclusion. It just can't be done. If God wants to do it, that's His business. As He makes plain in the narrative.
It sure looks like the old bad cop good cop game doesn't it? Mean old daddy and hippie wimp kid. Almost inevitably leads to PSA doesn't it?
Trying to justify God the Killer cannot work. I should know. He will do His own justifying if necessary.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
..... This atheist idea that Christians are supposed to model themselves upon everything that happens in the OT has never made much sense to me. Maybe I've just attended the wrong churches!....
Might I suggest that, rather than meeting more christians, you need to get to know more atheists, and attending less wrong churches probably won’t help with that!
Of course, quite rightly it’s “mental illness” when this guy hears his god and obeys him. WLC seems to believe it moral when the entire tribe of Israelites did the same. I, an atheist, don’t think that says anything about the existence/character of god – I think it says something about WLC - which is why I offered the clip as clarification of others’ remarks.
Man names god as reason
PS – any comeback re the use of “give” (as in gift of life)? Is it just lax use of English or am I missing something?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
HughWillRidmee
Are you saying that the ancient Israelites were all suffering from mental illness? Well, at least that's one way of explaining what was going on -we've been pretty short of ideas on this thread so far. I'm not sure if you're also saying that theists in general suffer from mental illness.
My point wasn't that atheists argue for God's existence, but that they often seem surprised that Christians don't attempt to model their lives on the OT.
[ 08. July 2013, 01:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Hugh WR
quote:
If your god gives life surely it becomes the recipient’s life and they can do as they want with it, including finishing it before disease, accident, old age etc. removes the choice.
If god retained the option to remove life
a) That would constitute a conditional loan rather than a gift, would it not? So it should be “god lends life and takes it back when he feels like it” - and
b) Would he not have a moral responsibility to require repayment in a way which avoided unnecessary distress etc. (as we impose regulation on those who need to end the life of creatures necessarily used in experimental research).
The biblical view is that everything belongs to God. You could say that God lends us life on earth. However, in the English language it's possible to 'give' someone a loan. It's possible to give something to someone for safekeeping and then to take it back.
As for avoiding 'unnecessary distress' - that would be a different religion. I don't understand how that would fit in with Christianity, whose central figure undergoes a considerable amount of suffering.
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's the underlying premise to his contention that genocidal bronze age tribesmen (the Israelites) have left us a moral code worth emulating.
That's the bit I asked for a reference for, you've just repeated the question back. All this stuff about "a moral code" doesn't seem to me to be part of any of the discussion so far, but I may have missed it.
quote:
His argument is fairly straightforward.
I've read it, but I'm not sure you get it. There's a vast gulf between saying that the moral implication of killing is mitigated if a really great afterlife exists (which I think Craig is doing) and killing because a really great afterlife exists (which it seems to me is what your are saying).
Again, I'm not defending Craig's viewpoint, but at least he's worked to a conclusion from first priciples rather than the other way around.
[ 08. July 2013, 02:05: Message edited by: David ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
- God sends dead children directly to heaven
- Going to heaven is actually an improvement over life on Earth
- Therefore anything or anyone which kills young children is actually doing them a favor
The fact that we presume WLC wouldn't make this case for anything other than his scriptures means this is insincerely offered special pleading.
As I said above, Craig doesn't argue that we're allowed to do whatever God does. Moreover, this list also completely ignores the contextualisation that Craig offers. In what context are children and parents of today in exactly the same state as the children and parents of Canaan? And in which modern situation has God explicitly commanded an OT response?
Well, presumably God still gives infants and small children a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card, and presumably existence in Heaven is still better than life on Earth, so those would be the same for Canaanite parents and children and their modern counterparts. Given that those reasons seem to suffice to convince WLC that child murder wasn't wrong in the specific Canaanite example, I can't see why the same facts wouldn't lead to the same conclusion in more general cases.
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
His argument is fairly straightforward.
I've read it, but I'm not sure you get it. There's a vast gulf between saying that the moral implication of killing is mitigated if a really great afterlife exists (which I think Craig is doing) and killing because a really great afterlife exists (which it seems to me is what your are saying).
I think you're reading a deliberately charitable interpretation of "God¹ does these children no wrong in taking their lives". The argument is fairly straightforward that no one is wronged in cases of child murder. So yes, WLC is arguing that killing small children is "mitigated [because] a really great afterlife exists", but he takes it further to argue that it's mitigated to such a degree that it cannot be considered "wrong" anymore. Certainly the children themselves are not wronged by being killed, in WLC's estimation. He states so explicitly.
--------------------
¹Technically God doesn't take the lives of the Canaanite children, he simply orders his followers to do so, rather like a mafia don ordering a hit.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
It's really kind of hard to justify the slaughter of the Caananite children by that rational and not accept murders such as Andrea Yates, who killed her five children, and according to Wikipedia:
quote:
While in prison, Andrea stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her jail psychiatrist: "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."[57] She also told her jail psychiatrist that Satan influenced her children and made them more disobedient.[58]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Perfect Crœsos. You have summed up my position for over 40 years: God the Son was doing the Canaanites and Amalekites (and antediluvians and Zoarites and first born of Egypt and Ananias and Sapphira and Herod Agrippa) a favour.
A position that even as I write this ... comes back to confront me, worse beguile me, not because I want it to be so but because it is so easy to see in the entire narrative.
That God the Son laid down this terrible pragmatic violence when incarnate, that in so doing He trashed the old clich'e of bad dad nice lad and became the express image of our non-violent, non-coercive, non-judgemental Father.
The hope is that in fact it's more complex than that: that what we see in the violence of God extra-incarnate is our projection which He ... pragmatically assented to, except when incarnate.
A hope that in a sense ... we must be prepared to forego, but need for now?
What a ... weird place to be!
In Him. In His peace. Regardless.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Perfect Crœsos. You have summed up my position for over 40 years: God the Son was doing the Canaanites and Amalekites (and antediluvians and Zoarites and first born of Egypt and Ananias and Sapphira and Herod Agrippa) a favour.
A position that even as I write this ... comes back to confront me, worse beguile me, not because I want it to be so but because it is so easy to see in the entire narrative.
That God the Son laid down this terrible pragmatic violence when incarnate, that in so doing He trashed the old clich'e of bad dad nice lad and became the express image of our non-violent, non-coercive, non-judgemental Father.
The hope is that in fact it's more complex than that: that what we see in the violence of God extra-incarnate is our projection which He ... pragmatically assented to, except when incarnate.
A hope that in a sense ... we must be prepared to forego, but need for now?
What a ... weird place to be!
In Him. In His peace. Regardless.
What planet are you on you silly old fool
You have no idea of what God is like. Do you deliberately ignore our Christ's unqualified accep trance of the YWH of the OT?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Perfect Crœsos. You have summed up my position for over 40 years: God the Son was doing the Canaanites and Amalekites (and antediluvians and Zoarites and first born of Egypt and Ananias and Sapphira and Herod Agrippa) a favour.
A position that even as I write this ... comes back to confront me, worse beguile me, not because I want it to be so but because it is so easy to see in the entire narrative.
That God the Son laid down this terrible pragmatic violence when incarnate, that in so doing He trashed the old clich'e of bad dad nice lad and became the express image of our non-violent, non-coercive, non-judgemental Father.
The hope is that in fact it's more complex than that: that what we see in the violence of God extra-incarnate is our projection which He ... pragmatically assented to, except when incarnate.
A hope that in a sense ... we must be prepared to forego, but need for now?
What a ... weird place to be!
In Him. In His peace. Regardless.
What planet are you on you silly old fool
You have no idea of what God is like. Do you deliberately ignore our Christ's unqualified accep trance of the YWH of the OT?
Silly old fool? Really? Well firstly, I think that Martin would probably embrace the accusation as a badge of honour. And, of course, Paul himself was a fool for Christ. But really? To dare to believe that when we look into the face of Jesus we are looking into the face of the eternal "I am" is foolishness? That even the most powerful human mind must bow to the mystery of Divine love. That our jealous God scorns the idolatry of being categorised by words on a page, even inspired words? Well give some of that foolishness to me! Silly old fool that I am, I thought that was the Gospel.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Perfect Crœsos. You have summed up my position for over 40 years: God the Son was doing the Canaanites and Amalekites (and antediluvians and Zoarites and first born of Egypt and Ananias and Sapphira and Herod Agrippa) a favour.
A position that even as I write this ... comes back to confront me, worse beguile me, not because I want it to be so but because it is so easy to see in the entire narrative.
That God the Son laid down this terrible pragmatic violence when incarnate, that in so doing He trashed the old clich'e of bad dad nice lad and became the express image of our non-violent, non-coercive, non-judgemental Father.
The hope is that in fact it's more complex than that: that what we see in the violence of God extra-incarnate is our projection which He ... pragmatically assented to, except when incarnate.
A hope that in a sense ... we must be prepared to forego, but need for now?
What a ... weird place to be!
In Him. In His peace. Regardless.
I get you, Martin. Jesus shows us the way to the God whose good nature we know.
This is the one God whose people must and will flourish when they follow his good guidance even though they suffer, while those who worship idols with human sacrifice and carry out other atrocities will diminish. In retrospect, with hindsight, we may write God into our stories.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Presumably God still gives infants and small children a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card, and presumably existence in Heaven is still better than life on Earth, so those would be the same for Canaanite parents and children and their modern counterparts. Given that those reasons seem to suffice to convince WLC that child murder wasn't wrong in the specific Canaanite example, I can't see why the same facts wouldn't lead to the same conclusion in more general cases.
So your point is that God (if he exists) should ensure that all children die, so that they can all go to heaven? Do you think that the Bible, taken as a whole, teaches that? Hmmm. The Bible is a long book; you've just made it a whole lot shorter! All that Jesus stuff is a complete waste of time, for a start! You've created a new religion, which is something.
If you were a liberal Christian theologian or a scholar of ancient history how would you explain the clashes between the Israelites and the Canaanites?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's certainly a logical corollary if God only damns on the basis of reaching the age of responsibility in this life and not saying the sinner's prayer if you know you should.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't see how logic is terribly helpful here. What's the point of all the Jesus business if, according to the Bible, little kids would be better off just dying?
Christianity is admittedly a challenging religion. I suppose it's easier to chuck out God's murderous Israelites than it is to chuck out God's Son. But you still have to ask yourself why a nice kind God would put a nice innocent Jesus to all that bother.
Ultimately, I really don't see any easy way of escaping the problem of suffering in the Bible. If the suffering of the Canaanite children was 'deliberate', then so was the suffering of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you can't expunge one without asking why the other is particularly necessary....
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What planet are you on you silly old fool
Excuse me! Remember you are in Purgatory, if you please! Martin may be a fool for Christ if he chooses, but in Purg, you will be mannerly for your hosts. Take the personal attacks to Hell.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Presumably God still gives infants and small children a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card, and presumably existence in Heaven is still better than life on Earth, so those would be the same for Canaanite parents and children and their modern counterparts. Given that those reasons seem to suffice to convince WLC that child murder wasn't wrong in the specific Canaanite example, I can't see why the same facts wouldn't lead to the same conclusion in more general cases.
So your point is that God (if he exists) should ensure that all children die, so that they can all go to heaven?
It's not my point, it's Mr. Craig's. And if you accept the premise that God doesn't send small children to Hell (something not explicitly taught by scripture) and that God's biggest motivation is getting souls into heaven, then ordering the summary execution of a sizable number of infants and toddlers seems a plausible way to accomplish this. Since I don't buy into either of these premises this isn't a conclusion I reach, but it is consistent with the argument advanced by WLC.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think that the Bible, taken as a whole, teaches that?
No, but I'm not ideologically wedded to the idea that "the Bible, taken as a whole" has no internal contradictions in the way that Mr. Craig is. I'm perfectly content to note that the God we see in the Book of Joshua acts in almost the opposite way as the God we see in the Book of Jonah (for example).
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you were a liberal Christian theologian or a scholar of ancient history how would you explain the clashes between the Israelites and the Canaanites?
I'm neither of those things, so giving my assessment of Bronze Age warfare in the Middle East under that pretense would be about as relevant as saying "if I were a cardiac surgeon, the proper way to perform this bypass would be . . . "
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you accept the premise that God doesn't send small children to Hell (something not explicitly taught by scripture) and that God's biggest motivation is getting souls into heaven, then ordering the summary execution of a sizable number of infants and toddlers seems a plausible way to accomplish this. Since I don't buy into either of these premises this isn't a conclusion I reach, but it is consistent with the argument advanced by WLC.
[...]
I'm not ideologically wedded to the idea that "the Bible, taken as a whole" has no internal contradictions in the way that Mr. Craig is. I'm perfectly content to note that the God we see in the Book of Joshua acts in almost the opposite way as the God we see in the Book of Jonah (for example).
As you say, you have no interest in exploring different parts of the Bible to discover the possibilities for synthesis and transformation, as well as irreconcilable differences. Christians do, which is why your notion that Craig promotes the slaughter of children makes little sense. This idea is only 'biblical' if you take a few passages in the OT and force them to represent the whole of the Bible, without reference to anything else. Christians don't read the Bible in this way (and I don't think scholars do either), and I can't understand why they should, to be honest. But we're unlikely to agree on this! Fair enough.
BTW I asked you about 'Bronze Age warfare' just in case you had some interesting pet theory about it. Some folk do. For example, according to HughWillRidmee the ancient Israelites were suffering from mental illness. No doubt there are others who claim that the ancient Israelites didn't exist, etc. Hopefully someone else will come up with a few interesting ideas.
[ 08. July 2013, 18:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As you say, you have no interest in exploring different parts of the Bible to discover the possibilities for synthesis and transformation, as well as irreconcilable differences. Christians do, which is why your notion that Craig promotes the slaughter of children makes little sense. This idea is only 'biblical' if you take a few passages in the OT and force them to represent the whole of the Bible, without reference to anything else.
Not at all. Craig advances an explanation about why a specific instance of child murder was beneficial and not morally wrong, and he does so using terms that are generally applicable to just about any child murder. He didn't build his case on the specifics of the particular situation, just on generalities about God and the afterlife. The problem with generalities (or their advantage, depending on your point of view) is that they're general and applicable to a wide variety of circumstances. So, if Canaanite children aren't wronged by being brutally murdered because they get fast-tracked to heaven, the same logic applies to any other child murder. Unless God has changed His mind and is now damning small children to Hell.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Craig advances an explanation about why a specific instance of child murder was beneficial and not morally wrong, and he does so using terms that are generally applicable to just about any child murder. He didn't build his case on the specifics of the particular situation, just on generalities about God and the afterlife. The problem with generalities (or their advantage, depending on your point of view) is that they're general and applicable to a wide variety of circumstances. So, if Canaanite children aren't wronged by being brutally murdered because they get fast-tracked to heaven, the same logic applies to any other child murder. Unless God has changed His mind and is now damning small children to Hell.
You may be referring to a debate or a text that I haven't read or seen, but the one linked to here didn't strike me in this way at all. Yes, Craig may have stated that these children would go to heaven (and plenty of very liberal Christian commentators would say the same thing, I'm sure!!) but he also carefully problematised the particular context surrounding these children. If the context was entirely irrelevant, as you say, then he needn't have added this information at all. I'm not sure that the context was irrelevant, nor that it's replicated in a general way among all children.
However, of greater concern to me is your insistence that the rest of the Bible is entirely irrelevant here. This is where you and I have to part company entirely. Even if I discarded the dreadful story about the slaughter of these Canaanite children - and I'm still waiting for some erudite person to tell me how this might best be done!! - I would be doing so with reference to what appears in the rest of the Bible.
[ 08. July 2013, 18:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You may be referring to a debate or a text that I haven't read or seen, but the one linked to here didn't strike me in this way at all. Yes, Craig may have stated that these children would go to heaven (and plenty of very liberal Christian commentators would say the same thing, I'm sure!!) but he also carefully problematised the particular context surrounding these children. If the context was entirely irrelevant, as you say, then he needn't have added this information at all. I'm not sure that the context was irrelevant, nor that it's replicated in a general way among all children.
There's some context in Craig's argument (though not a lot) surrounding adult Canaanites and why killing them was okay, but next to nothing regarding the children.
quote:
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?
Simple, straight, and to the point. Because Canaanite children go to heaven, killing them is essentially a victimless non-crime, wronging no one. Unless we assume that non-Canaanite children don't automatically go to heaven (something Mr. Craig explicitly denies), there's no reason this same argument isn't applicable to any other child murder.
So yes, someone could argue that there were special circumstances at work in this particular instance. That someone would not be William Lane Craig, though. I appreciate you feel the need to defend the argument you think he should have made. The fact that you can only do this by ignoring the argument he actually made speaks volumes.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, of greater concern to me is your insistence that the rest of the Bible is entirely irrelevant here.
It's not my insistence, it's Mr. Craig's. The fact that he didn't find anything besides a few passages of Genesis relevant to his analysis of the slaughter of the Canaanites (and a snippet from Ezekiel and Jonah to illustrate the general nature of God) isn't particularly my fault. You can certainly advance the argument that the general arc of the Bible curves towards justice in a way that contradicts a few Godly genocides, but that's not Mr. Craig's argument. Ultimately this thread is about him, not God's abattoir.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think it's correct that Craig does not see this as a special case. I have heard people say, oh well, this was unusual, and it would not apply today, and it does not mean that you can just kill kids, but Craig does not appear to say that, at least in this essay.
His argument is quite simple: whatever God does (or commands) is by definition, good. Of course, there are all kinds of problems with people who claim to have heard God's commands - I believe at one point, the Yorkshire Ripper claimed this.
Of course, liberal Christians don't tend to worry about such passages; as Craig indicates, they are seen as legendary. This is still a problem in one sense, since it shows that ancient Jews saw God like this, but that doesn't mean that I have to.
In fact, you could say that the problem arises directly from the idea of Biblical inerrancy.
[ 08. July 2013, 19:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Jamat, got me in three, what altered state is an accep trance and what is the YWH of the OT?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, you could say that the problem arises directly from the idea of Biblical inerrancy.
If one accepts biblical inerrancy, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that God is inconsistent, arrogant and narcissistic. One that would not have sent Jesus. At not as the bible depicts.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Though of course if one wants to discuss biblical inerrancy, there is a whole forum for such topics. (Dead Horses)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Simple, straight, and to the point. Because Canaanite children go to heaven, killing them is essentially a victimless non-crime, wronging no one. Unless we assume that non-Canaanite children don't automatically go to heaven (something Mr. Craig explicitly denies), there's no reason this same argument isn't applicable to any other child murder. So yes, someone could argue that there were special circumstances at work in this particular instance. That someone would not be William Lane Craig, though. I appreciate you feel the need to defend the argument you think he should have made. The fact that you can only do this by ignoring the argument he actually made speaks volumes.
Wrong. Prof Craig clearly set us the special circumstances at work in this particular instance. Namely, that the killing was commanded by God. Specifically, Prof Craig states
quote:
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. 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.
Hence Prof Craig's argument is not at all applicable to any other child murder. It is only applicable to killing of children commanded by God. God has however given a general command to humans not to murder. While it is not always easy to tell murder from lawful killing, all interpreters of the bible agree that killing the innocent is murder, and that children are deemed essentially innocent. Thus there is a general command from God to humans not to kill children. This general command can only be overridden by a specific command from God Himself, as apparently was the case for the Canaanites. Prof Craig then merely addresses the eternal fate of these children as a secondary point, namely to clarify whether it was unjust of God to deprive these Canaanite children of their life. But at that point the special case has already been established.
And please do not try to argue that every child murderer can claim to be inspired by God. That may very well be so, but that is utterly irrelevant. To what extent we can discern Divine command is simply a different question to whether Divine command can, and has in the case of the Canaanites, established a special case. The answer to that is that yes, Divine command can establish a special case, and yes, to assert that this was the case for the Canaanites is viable both according to natural reason and Divine revelation. And since Prof Craig has clearly pointed to this, your reading of his argument is plain and simply flawed.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
As is the argument that can justify this killing as necessary.
God said it so it does not need justification is lame.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
But rhetorically far superior to yours. Just like Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler, Watson and Crick.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The answer to that is that yes, Divine command can establish a special case, and yes, to assert that this was the case for the Canaanites is viable both according to natural reason and Divine revelation.
It's getting a bit off topic, but I have to admit I'm curious. What was the natural reason-based, non-revelatory reason to conclude the Canaanites were marked out for destruction by God?
[ 08. July 2013, 20:36: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's some context in Craig's argument (though not a lot) surrounding adult Canaanites and why killing them was okay, but next to nothing regarding the children.
[...]
Someone could argue that there were special circumstances at work in this particular instance. That someone would not be William Lane Craig, though. I appreciate you feel the need to defend the argument you think he should have made. The fact that you can only do this by ignoring the argument he actually made speaks volumes.
What it says it that I'm not a student of Craig's work as you are! Joining this thread was a chance for me to learn more. I'm trying to find the link I looked at before, but it's not the one posted at the beginning of the thread. I'll find it though, because I'm curious to revisit the bit where Craig apparently gives the impression that all children would be better off dead than alive. That's not what I saw - and it's the sort of thing that you'd think would leap out at you and smack you in the face!
I admit to having been influenced primarily by Lee Strobel's book on faith, which posits that the Canaanite children were in a disinctive state of absolute moral desolation, and that the happy childhood innocence that we imagine was unknown to them because their culture didn't recognise the concept. Their childhood was brutalised and debauched and their adulthood full of vengeful defiance. Apparently, the spiritual evil at the heart of their culture threatened to derail God's redemptive project, so after centuries of chance after chance it had to be neutralised. Etc. etc. A Bible scholar might be able to confirm or deny the quality of Canaanite culture; all the rest is down to faith. No point arguing about that.
So, this leaves Martin's exhortation to expunge from biblical consideration all the bits that challenge or problematise the smooth goodness and kindness of God. I remain genuinely challenged as to how I might do this. The churches we attend don't deal with this problem. What a shame! Liberal thinkers dare not speak their truths from the pulpit, nor in popular televised debates, but then they're cross when someone like Craig finds a following. Atheists don't care, but the liberal Christians who want to reform Christianity for the future need to do better.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I admit to having been influenced primarily by Lee Strobel's book on faith, which posits that the Canaanite children were in a disinctive state of absolute moral desolation, and that the happy childhood innocence that we imagine was unknown to them because their culture didn't recognise the concept. Their childhood was brutalised and debauched and their adulthood full of vengeful defiance.
Yeah, because the folks God liked were wonders of morality. Sorry, cannot see it as other than justification for a military goal.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think the morality thing was about paganism and child-sacrifice. But anyway, thanks for your alternative explanation; I'm collecting them.
[ 08. July 2013, 20:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The children here are a special case, for God has (apparently) commanded it. It does not mean that it's always OK to kill kids, nor that it's OK, if one thinks God has commanded it. I think someone referred to that woman who killed her own five kids, because she heard God's voice, ditto the Yorkshire Ripper. So how do we know when someone hears God's voice - obviously we don't.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's getting a bit off topic, but I have to admit I'm curious. What was the natural reason-based, non-revelatory reason to conclude the Canaanites were marked out for destruction by God?
I said that it is viable to assert this, according to natural reason. Or in other words, natural reason cannot show that there is any logical contradiction involved in this religious claim, i.e., neither an internal self-contradiction nor a contradiction with known facts is arguable. It could indeed be as Prof Craig claims, that God's direct command established a moral exception here: this is consistent with Prof Craig's overall Divine command theory and at least compatible with all else that we know about the world. You can still claim that Prof Craig is talking out of his ass, of course, but that is merely a case of assertion vs. counter-assertion, not one of argument.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you were a liberal Christian theologian or a scholar of ancient history how would you explain the clashes between the Israelites and the Canaanites?
That the Canaanites had something the Israelites wanted, and the Israelites were willing to commit genocide to get it. Same old messed-up-human song, different verse.
They may have sincerely believed that God wanted them to do it, but I don't think She did. Genocide of a tribe's enemies might be acceptable from a tribal god, because they're generally seen as protecting their own. (Not that it would be good, but it would make some kind of sense.) But from a loving Creator of all people??
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do we know when someone hears God's voice - obviously we don't.
Interesting point - since the only way anyone has ever apparently heard God's voice is via the words of another person or in their own heads. That might be a new topic, I suppose, but it would be quite short!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Susan--
Well, the Bible has stories of people hearing, even seeing God, and they're not presented as being in the mind or in a dream. (Though there are those kinds of stories, too.) I think other religions have similar stories.
I don't know if any of them happened, or how, or what (if anything) they meant.
But your observation that "apparent" ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
conversations with God were in the mind or through another person is...incomplete!
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I admit to having been influenced primarily by Lee Strobel's book on faith, which posits that the Canaanite children were in a disinctive state of absolute moral desolation, and that the happy childhood innocence that we imagine was unknown to them because their culture didn't recognise the concept. Their childhood was brutalised and debauched and their adulthood full of vengeful defiance. Apparently, the spiritual evil at the heart of their culture threatened to derail God's redemptive project, so after centuries of chance after chance it had to be neutralised.
The difficulty with this position is that actually the culture wasn’t neutralised. Not only did it survive, it flourished. A close reading of the books of Joshua and Judges indicate that far from carrying out God’s commands to the letter, the Israelites got bored and wandered off after a couple of battles and some small massacres. A few short years after the conquest, the Israelite tribes were still living alongside the supposedly extinguished former inhabitants of the land. They managed to take majority control of the eastern hill lands, but the western areas were still very Canaanite.
Yet by David and Solomon’s time, apparently despite this continuation of Canaanite culture and influence, Israel was a holy kingdom. Not perfect of course, but under strong Godly leaders it hadn’t been inevitably corrupted by its Canaanite foundations. It was only later that Israel turned away from God and its depravity brought judgement upon it.
If God’s command to massacre the children was based on the total unredeemed corruption of every member of Canaanite culture, and that the only moral solution was to exterminate them all, then the fact that this didn’t actually happen should have led to disaster and consequences that were similar to the judgments of the later invasions and exile of the Israelites.
Your description of Lee Strobel’s book sounds very based on unsupported assumptions to me. There is no evidence for this utter brutalisation of the culture. Strobel only describes it as such because he needs to in order to support his a priori conclusions. Very poor argumentation IMO.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do we know when someone hears God's voice - obviously we don't.
Interesting point - since the only way anyone has ever apparently heard God's voice is via the words of another person or in their own heads. That might be a new topic, I suppose, but it would be quite short!
Well, its a matter of discernment. It largely depends on corroborating evidence. The prophets in the Bible appear sometimes quite canny, not assuming that the voice they were hearing was God immediately, or not being brave enough to follow its direction straight away. Some demanded God provide signs to prove it was really Him, such as making the fleece dry or damp. Others heard God alongside existing corroborating evidence like Moses who heard God out of a bush that burned but wasn't consumed. The Israelites who heard God's commands from Moses, were pretty convinced by the mountain of fire, smoke and death he went up to speak to God.
If someone in ancient Israel suddenly heard a voice in his head out of the blue telling him to go out and start killing, he would be foolish (or insane) to just run out immediatly and start flailing around randomly with his sword. "God told me to do it" would be as much of a defence then as it would be today. People in the past weren't naturally stupid or gullible, as much as we from our modern-centric bias like to think they were.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Svit - I don't like getting into these discussions because there are some posters who seem to get angry that I can't accept these supposed commands as being the real desires of God. But you've asked what a liberal would say, so here goes.
FWIW, observing as Hawk does that the Canaanites were in fact alive and well well after this period, I'd suggest that much of this history is legendary. It's not unlike Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain - bits of real history in it, but lots of stuff that never actually happened. It forms ancient Israel's identity. I deal with "why did God command these mass murders" with "he didn't" and "they didn't actually occur, at least not as described".
But that depends on whether you can take on board the thoughts of someone who thinks that when Hezekiah found the book of the Law the ink was suspiciously damp.
[ 09. July 2013, 10:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I admit to having been influenced primarily by Lee Strobel's book on faith, which posits that the Canaanite children were in a disinctive state of absolute moral desolation, and that the happy childhood innocence that we imagine was unknown to them because their culture didn't recognise the concept. Their childhood was brutalised and debauched and their adulthood full of vengeful defiance.
As Hawk points out - this is a case of Strobel making up arguments based on his conclusions.
There is no evidence that Canaanite culture was anything like that described - what evidence there is suggests that child sacrifice was probably a minority practice. The references to Topheth and Gehenna suggest that it was a minority practice in Israel as well - as do the prohibitions we find in the Deuteronomic Law codes.
In fact, what it is most reminiscent of is the common blood libel that has been directed at various 'Others' over the centuries - including the Jews.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Karl, Hawk and chris
Many thanks for your comments. One answer is that none of this ever happened, and another is that there were just a few nondescript skirmishes that were of no special interest to God.
To be fair to Strobel, the part of his book I was referring to is in the form of an interview with a scholar called Norman Geisler. My refs were to Geiseler's ideas, not directly to Strobel's. Geisler does say that many of the women and children would have been sent away from the warfare in advance, because according to the code of conduct given to the Israelites by God a declaration of war couldn't come out of the blue. It would have been the final part part of a long process, including an offer of peace.
Hawk and other sources say that some Canaanite nations continued to exist and interact with the Israelites after this point. Perhaps it was the case that despite God's (alleged) exhortations of extermination, He took into account the fact that some of these nations would continue to exist in some form, that some individuals would survive, and that eventually some of them would serve God's purposes, rather than presenting the sort of cosmic threat that was supposedly present in the earlier periods. God, after all, knows the future.
More important than the precise histories of these ancient people (since I'm not an 'inerrantist'!!) is the broader implication that Christians ought to wipe away the idea that God might have authorised anything nasty that happened in the Bible. To me, this distances God from human experience rather than bringing him closer; but above all, it renders almost absurd the story of Jesus's suffering and crucifixion. This dreadful experience is at the heart of the Jesus story, and it happens because God wants it to happen. Banishing the OT from our sphere of vision doesn't help when it comes to the mainstream Christian belief that God wanted his own perfectly innocent Son to suffer and die in the most awful way.
[ 09. July 2013, 16:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Svit, there's a hell of a difference between God the Son willingly giving his life, and innocents having their lives unwillingly and brutally taken from them.
The problem isn't with God sanctioning "nasty" things; it's with God sanctioning blatantly evil things. I do get fed up with the "you just want God to be a big fluffy teddy" shite that gets flung around and that is one of the reasons I am sick to the back teeth of this particular subject.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Karl
I'm sorry to upset you. It's just that, to my untutored mind, trying to ignore that God has authorised this sinful, suffering world - a world that requires the suffering of his own innocent Son to redeem - does seem to lead to something approaching a 'big fluffy teddy' God. Even many atheists have difficulty with the notion (if obviously not the existence) of a God who allows the level of suffering that exists in the world. To them, that's 'evil'.
I don't have an answer of course, but the unease is always with me. Your way seems to be an attempt to remove the unease. I believe there are liberal theologians who try to put it back in, and those are the theologians I need to hear more of.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I don't really understand the problem. Surely as a liberal I could either conclude that God commits whole-scale murder and is evil, and yes that conclusion would surely make me uncomfortable, or I could conclude that he does not. Is it wise to always choose the option we like least even if evidence points to a more palatable option? Because the evidence of my life and of the NT tells me that God doesn't commit whole-scale murder.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's just that, to my untutored mind, trying to ignore that God has authorised this sinful, suffering world - a world that requires the suffering of his own innocent Son to redeem - does seem to lead to something approaching a 'big fluffy teddy' God.
As you'll know, the oft-given explanation for this is 'free will'; an integral part of God's creation is that sentient beings have the freedom of choice to accept or reject God's ways. So God didn't authorise this sinful, suffering world as such, he rather authorised a world in which sin and suffering were possible.
'Big fluffy teddy' God and 'brutal genocidal monster' God aren't the only coherent options, ISTM...
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Susan--
Well, the Bible has stories of people hearing, even seeing God, and they're not presented as being in the mind or in a dream. (
no, true, but they were told by people, written by people so a human person was central! quote:
But your observation that "apparent" conversations with God were in the mind or through another person is...incomplete!
Okay, I'll accept the word 'incomplete' /... ... I think/
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Well, its a matter of discernment. It largely depends on corroborating evidence. The prophets in the Bible appear sometimes quite canny, not assuming that the voice they were hearing was God immediately, or not being brave enough to follow its direction straight away. Some demanded God provide signs to prove it was really Him, such as making the fleece dry or damp. Others heard God alongside existing corroborating evidence like Moses who heard God out of a bush that burned but wasn't consumed. The Israelites who heard God's commands from Moses, were pretty convinced by the mountain of fire, smoke and death he went up to speak to God.
If someone in ancient Israel suddenly heard a voice in his head out of the blue telling him to go out and start killing, he would be foolish (or insane) to just run out immediatly and start flailing around randomly with his sword. "God told me to do it" would be as much of a defence then as it would be today. People in the past weren't naturally stupid or gullible, as much as we from our modern-centric bias like to think they were.
Thank you; very interesting post. I wonderhowever, what you would consider would be sufficient corroboration today, bearing in mind the immensely better explanations there would be if something apparently unnatural happened?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The first time Rowan Williams impressed me, in my prejudice, and greatly, was after 9 11. I recall him saying, in effect, 'Say nothing. There is nothing to say.'.
That's where I'm at now. With regard to the extra-incarnate God as revealed in the Bible apart from - as if there were no - Jesus.
I only want to see Him in the light of Jesus.
(in part because I find Him all too beguiling, impressive, awesome, dreadful)
I do not want to see Jesus in His light.
(in part because at times Jesus sounds like Him, barely restrained, threatening)
It's a matter of choosing emphasis.
[ 09. July 2013, 19:56: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Martin--
Whereas, for me, God has always been the most important. (Especially as Creator, ever since I was a teeny tiny tyke.) Some people say, "If Jesus, then maybe God". I'm the other way around.
For me, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else: If Jesus really is God incarnate, or some other version of being God's son, then yes, he's important. But if he's not, then he's a Teacher, or even just a teacher.
So, for me, if I filter out all the "incarnate" stuff, then there's a good teacher, philosopher, rabbi, wandering-monk type guy who said some very good things. But so have lots of other teachers. And if he's not God among us, I honestly don't see that he's better than other good teachers.
I've had to do a lot of filtering of the biblical presentation of God. Growing up, I was taught that *all* the descriptions of God's personality and behavior were accurate--and that everything God was recorded as doing was fully justified and good.
I wrestled with that for a long, long time. I finally decided that a) I couldn't cope with an ogre God; b) since the Bible has threads of both love and hate running through it, I could choose which to follow; and c) it was worth the risk to choose a good and loving God, even if that also meant risking running afoul of a real ogre God, if I was wrong.
It was a very scary step, for me. But it's rarely scary any more. And it's a huge relief.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Isn't Craig just falling foul of the tribal religious phase in Jewish history? I mean that Yahweh was originally a tribal god of the Hebrews, who defended them against other tribes and gods.
Some people even argue about an original polytheism.
But in any case, in a tribal system, your own god is likely to wage war against other gods and tribes; therefore, massacres may seem the order of the day.
Or am I missing something here?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What planet are you on you silly old fool
Excuse me! Remember you are in Purgatory, if you please! Martin may be a fool for Christ if he chooses, but in Purg, you will be mannerly for your hosts. Take the personal attacks to Hell.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Deepest regrets at offending.
The Bible sees 'fool' as an objective term; one who has said in his heart that God does not exist.
To redefine him according to one's post modern doubts about the objectivity of language or to say that his revelation of himself is inconsistent is in fact the same thing. It is to redefine him according to our fallenness; to in fact make him in our image. God calls such people 'fools'.
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable.
"God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent"
He is what he has revealed himself to be and is outside the judgement of humanity. To accuse him of evil is ridiculous. To blame him for evil is blasphemous. To attribute collateral damage to him is to misunderstand the nature of a being who operates from outside time according to the principles of mercy and justice, who sees far ahead in terms of consequence and who is dealing with a created being with an eternal future and who is allowing and testing the heart choices of that created being and who has an eternal cosmic objective, the redemption of what can be redeemed. It is also to misunderstand the nature of evil.
To self-justify is to deny sin. To throw away one's confidence is to lose hope and to hope in the unreal is folly. To humble oneself under his mighty hand is to expect to suffer and to love others is to allow his spirit to use you.
We don't have to believe him and we don't have to accept his deal of salvation. We don't have to hear the whispers of his Holy Spirit to be unselfish givers and we can be dismissive of his words and actions as seen in the Bible, in nature and in our own hearts.
In short, we are perfectly free to be fools..in a strictly 'Biblical' sense.
But it is quite foolish.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable. [/QB]
No, it's the result of 30 years of thinking about this particular subject as a Christian. But I'm used to this sort of patronising superior bullshit response.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable.
No, it's the result of 30 years of thinking about this particular subject as a Christian. But I'm used to this sort of patronising superior bullshit response. [/QB]
Now Gwai, How consistent are you?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable.
I'm with Karl on this one. What he's doing is acknowledging the massive disconnect between Yahweh of the Old Testament who (apparently) told the Israelites to slaughter their enemies and the New Testament Jesus who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, bless those who curse us and so on.
IMO we can't pretend there's no contradiction here and hide behind a seemingly holy unwillingness to question the character of God. There's a disconnect between the OT and the NT portrayal of who God is; what are we going to do about that?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable.
No, it's the result of 30 years of thinking about this particular subject as a Christian. But I'm used to this sort of patronising superior bullshit response.
Now Gwai, How consistent are you? [/QB]
If you would like to discuss my hosting, ask in the Styx. I would be happy to discuss my reasons there. Purgatory is not the place to discuss hosting.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm with Karl on this one. What he's doing is acknowledging the massive disconnect between Yahweh of the Old Testament who (apparently) told the Israelites to slaughter their enemies and the New Testament Jesus who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, bless those who curse us and so on.
IMO we can't pretend there's no contradiction here and hide behind a seemingly holy unwillingness to question the character of God. There's a disconnect between the OT and the NT portrayal of who God is; what are we going to do about that?
What Jesus said comes from the Old Testament: the New reflects the Old, and vice versa. The way people see God in our lives must vary from generation to generation, even though God is the same good Lord throughout. Each side in a war thinks that God is with them. What kind of God do they see? One who is on the side of what is right.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No He's not Raptor Eye. In Jesus He wasn't violent or even coercive (the chickens in the temple might disagree). So however He is when He's not incarnate is no example for us.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable.
No, it's the result of 30 years of thinking about this particular subject as a Christian. But I'm used to this sort of patronising superior bullshit response.
Now Gwai, How consistent are you?
If you would like to discuss my hosting, ask in the Styx. I would be happy to discuss my reasons there. Purgatory is not the place to discuss hosting.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host [/QB]
I don't wish to discuss anything with you.
Ship of Fools is actually not the place of Christian unrest if it ever was. It is the place of unrest about Christians. The emotions generated by an unpleasant and vindictive post like Karl's, actually affect my health. I wish him no ill will but this is no longer fun for me. It is a place where arrogance and bullying often prevail so I will leave it at that.
Blessings on you all.
Jamat
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Jamat - I'm sorry this discussion has affected you negatively. You probably do right to take some time out. But you must understand that it seems reasonable that someone who describes other people's positions as palpably erroneous and who describes posters as silly fools would be willing to receive robust replies to their points. I was careful to address your response, rather than launch a personal attack on you.
All the best. I've had to take steps back myself.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What a gent.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To say that we cannot believe in a God who is a mass murderer is to bang on in human terms, judging the almighty as if he were one of us.
The error of this is palpable.
No, it's the result of 30 years of thinking about this particular subject as a Christian. But I'm used to this sort of patronising superior bullshit response.
Now Gwai, How consistent are you?
If you would like to discuss my hosting, ask in the Styx. I would be happy to discuss my reasons there. Purgatory is not the place to discuss hosting.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
I don't wish to discuss anything with you.
Ship of Fools is actually not the place of Christian unrest if it ever was. It is the place of unrest about Christians. The emotions generated by an unpleasant and vindictive post like Karl's, actually affect my health. I wish him no ill will but this is no longer fun for me. It is a place where arrogance and bullying often prevail so I will leave it at that.
Blessings on you all.
Jamat [/QB]
This is not on topic, it is a discussion of ship's business. Use styx if you wish, but don't post this material here.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Jamat,
You've been on the Ship long enough to know that it is fine for people to attack ideas, but not posters. And that disagreements with Hosting decisions belong in the Styx.
We now return you to the scheduled discussion on William Lane Craig ...
Tubbs
Member Admin
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0