|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: William Lane Craig
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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 . . . "
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jamat, got me in three, what altered state is an accep trance and what is the YWH of the OT?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
As is the argument that can justify this killing as necessary.
God said it so it does not need justification is lame.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
But rhetorically far superior to yours. Just like Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler, Watson and Crick.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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??
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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/ ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
