William Lane Craig Justifies Genocide.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

And who says it's okay to conquer another people in the first damn place?

 

It's not that conquering another people is okay, but that if you do not conquer another people, they will surely conquer somebody, maybe you. Don't you think that if any country had a chance to conquer the US, live in our lands, rule it, take our nice comfy beds; Do you think they wouldn't?

 

Our freedom is like a poker hand. Nobody knows what the other has, and the cards on the table make everybody think they could get beat. The problem comes of when the person joins the table that doesn't care if they get beat, and they finish the game just to see. The person with the highest set of cards wins. Same with countries, the country with the bigger stick wins, not the most sophisticated, learned, philosophical, religious, etc. The big stick wins.

[RationalOkie]

It's not that conquering another people is okay, but that if you do not conquer another people, they will surely conquer somebody, maybe you. Don't you think that if any country had a chance to conquer the US, live in our lands, rule it, take our nice comfy beds; Do you think they wouldn't?

 

Our freedom is like a poker hand. Nobody knows what the other has, and the cards on the table make everybody think they could get beat. The problem comes of when the person joins the table that doesn't care if they get beat, and they finish the game just to see. The person with the highest set of cards wins. Same with countries, the country with the bigger stick wins, not the most sophisticated, learned, philosophical, religious, etc. The big stick wins.

 

So....the ends justify the means, eh? Genocide is fine as long as you are the country that wins. Learn that in Bible study? I love how right wing bible thumping Republicans think. They see no hypocrisy between who Jesus was and what he stood for and gun toting, war mongering xenophobes. It all just 'make sense' to them. Nice and neat.

[chefranden]

I can't get passed Craig's assertion that slaughter of the children is okay because "they get eternal life". All the children Bill? What about those children, say...10 years old who have reached the mysterious "age of accountability"?

 

Its just crap! William Craig and those of his ilk have nothing to teach anyone about morality. He may as well defend Babi Yar.

 

The real problem with this idea is that if it is true, Christians ought to kill their children to ensure they go to heaven. If they allow their children to grow up, there is a decent chance that they will go to hell. Of course the parent will have to go to hell. But any decent parent would give up his/her own eternal life for the eternal life of their child.

 

A guy like Craig, doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

 

I think that Craig would argue that children who had reached the age of accountability are as guilty as their parents.

[chefranden]

 

 

And who says it's okay to conquer another people in the first damn place?

 

It's not that conquering another people is okay, but that if you do not conquer another people, they will surely conquer somebody, maybe you. Don't you think that if any country had a chance to conquer the US, live in our lands, rule it, take our nice comfy beds; Do you think they wouldn't?

 

Our freedom is like a poker hand. Nobody knows what the other has, and the cards on the table make everybody think they could get beat. The problem comes of when the person joins the table that doesn't care if they get beat, and they finish the game just to see. The person with the highest set of cards wins. Same with countries, the country with the bigger stick wins, not the most sophisticated, learned, philosophical, religious, etc. The big stick wins.

 

This is correct, but it hardly speaks of a universal benevolent God. However, it does speak of evolution red in tooth and claw may the most violent gene win. Far from excusing your God, your argument goes to show that your God is not extant.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

This is correct, but it hardly speaks of a universal benevolent God. However, it does speak of evolution red in tooth and claw may the most violent gene win. Far from excusing your God, your argument goes to show that your God is not extant.

 

 

I see it the opposite. If God made us as we are, like you have said; then we can't change that. Sure, God could change it, but He didn't, so we are what we are. If that is a constant in this world, yet God wants people to know that He is God, then How else would God go about that?

 

Lets say God did set Israel out to conquer, and lets say on a tribal level they did conquer some places. History says little about Israel other than their oral passing downs, and archaeology saying they probably to the least existed.

 

The point is that God still made a people that He ordained to be His people, to worship Him. Israel is still present today. They were conquered, and are in constant warring with their neighbors in the present, BUT, they are still a people, devoted to the God of Israel.

 

Now, if they had not conquered any other area, AND God told them to love everyone they met; Would they have survived more than a week in ancient times?

 

I say no. I see this world as a pre-governed structure, in which God intervenes, but only by what is suppose to be intervened. Does that make sense? God could've said, " Zap! Israel is strong and undefeatable, but He didn't. He told them the rules, told them He would bless them if they followed the rules, told them they were 'special' and 'chosen' people. They still take that to heart in present day times. They sinned against God, and that is why they lost there land, or stance in this world. God forgave them and gathered them back together.

 

God doesn't live in a temple anymore, but within anyone that will accept Him.

 

The point is that Israel surely wouldn't have existed if they had not conquered any land, tribal or not. They have a big stick right now, and that is there big brothers backing them up. So, Israel, if not for conquering, would have been extinct as a group.

 

War is apart of life, and God already knew that we would war with each other, and that we are easily persuaded into other things. Obviously, God isn't walking around on Earth beside us, for whatever reasons. Doesn't that obvious explain the not so obvious?

[RationalOkie]

Now, if they had not conquered any other area, AND God told them to love everyone they met; Would they have survived more than a week in ancient times?

 

With a god that was real maybe. Pretty piss poor god if they didn't survive.

 

'Edited for typo'

[RationalOkie]

"Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you."

"Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other." Jesus H. Christ

 

What a War Mongerer. This guy could never run for office, they'd crucify him..... Freaking liberal!

[chefranden]

1I see it the opposite. If God made us as we are, like you have said; then we can't change that. Sure, God could change it, but He didn't, 2so we are what we are. If that is a constant in this world, yet God wants people to know that He is God, then 3How else would God go about that?

 

1. Well of course you do, but you need better critical thinking glasses.

 

2. And God condemns us for it.

 

3. He could come to visit, like he did Abraham and Adam.

 

Lets say God did set Israel out to conquer, and lets say on a tribal level they did conquer some places. History says little about Israel other than their oral passing downs, and archaeology saying they probably to the least existed.

 

Your writing here is a bit difficult to understand. Are you saying that archaeology doesn't support the bible stories? This is mostly correct.

 

The point is that God still made a people that He ordained to be His people, to worship Him. Israel is still present today. They were conquered, and are in constant warring with their neighbors in the present, BUT, they are still a people, devoted to the God of Israel.

 

The point is that a certain people declared themselves to be the chosen of God. All people are chosen by their particular god.

 

Now, if they had not conquered any other area, AND God told them to love everyone they met; Would they have survived more than a week in ancient times?

 

Not in real life, but if God were real of course they would have, unless of course God were a dirty trickster. You have yet to reveal anything that couldn't have happened without a God. So far you are still supporting a godless evolution.

 

 

I say no. I see this world as a pre-governed structure, in which God intervenes, but only by what is suppose to be intervened. Does that make sense? God could've said, " Zap! Israel is strong and undefeatable, but He didn't. He told them the rules, told them He would bless them if they followed the rules, told them they were 'special' and 'chosen' people. They still take that to heart in present day times. They sinned against God, and that is why they lost there land, or stance in this world. God forgave them and gathered them back together.

 

You have to say no because you want this god to exist. However, you are wrong. For you what ever happens proves god. If Israel had not reappeared you would just say the Jews are not forgiven. Anything that happens fits your bill, because you say it fits your bill. It is not very convincing to any non-christian.

 

God doesn't live in a temple anymore, but within anyone that will accept Him.

 

Well so you say, but you can't show it to be true.

 

The point is that Israel surely wouldn't have existed if they had not conquered any land, tribal or not. They have a big stick right now, and that is there big brothers backing them up. So, Israel, if not for conquering, would have been extinct as a group.

 

That's true, but it doesn't prove God by any means.

 

If victory in war is proof of a god then sometimes your god is real and sometimes it is not. This is no different than the old God answers prayer yes, no, or maybe. Any fucking god or stone, could be the cause of Israel drifting in and out of existent.

 

War is apart of life, and God already knew that we would war with each other, and that we are easily persuaded into other things. Obviously, God isn't walking around on Earth beside us, for whatever reasons. Doesn't that obvious explain the not so obvious?

 

Only in your convoluted mind. "God is real and the fact that he seems to be unreal proves that he is real!" Ok, if you say so. Now go back outside and play with the other children.

[dagnarus]

 

 

And who says it's okay to conquer another people in the first damn place?

 

It's not that conquering another people is okay, but that if you do not conquer another people, they will surely conquer somebody, maybe you. Don't you think that if any country had a chance to conquer the US, live in our lands, rule it, take our nice comfy beds; Do you think they wouldn't?

 

Our freedom is like a poker hand. Nobody knows what the other has, and the cards on the table make everybody think they could get beat. The problem comes of when the person joins the table that doesn't care if they get beat, and they finish the game just to see. The person with the highest set of cards wins. Same with countries, the country with the bigger stick wins, not the most sophisticated, learned, philosophical, religious, etc. The big stick wins.

 

That's justification for having a military not for conquering other countries.

 

Unless your suggesting that the US should go out and conquer the entire world, before anybody else has a chance to conquer them. (Which would only result in constant rebellion like in Iraq).

[dagnarus]

Obviously, God isn't walking around on Earth beside us, for whatever reasons. Doesn't that obvious explain the not so obvious?

 

Again I don't really think you actually belief your own arguments. I think when it comes down to it you know there is nothing to really set your God apart from the Pagan Gods, you know that command of Genocide is wrong, and you know that there is no reason to belief that God revealed himself in any of this. Personally I think your actual opinion is that the genocide described in Joshua is an evil act, the thing is your not allowed your opinion, that which would be against your god whom you fear. So you make these weak rationalizations in a desperate attempt to convince yourself that your not lying when you say it was justified.

 

On a side-note do you think that many continue practicing as Christians long after they stop believing in God simply because they haven't stopped fearing him?

[Franko47]

Why does OT God need a defense in the first place ? He's God. He can do whatever he wants. He created everything, so he can muck with it all he wants. Slay the innocent, reward the guilty (wow, there's a lot of that in the OT)...whatever he does is not subject to our approval or disapproval. He's God.

 

Amoral, contradictory, confusing, sadistic, egocentric, narcissistic, and omnipotent.

 

 

Don't question all this. Bow down. Obey. Accept. That's a good little human. Now fetch me my slippers. Cuz I said so......

 

 

Why not just come out and admit this, Abiyoyo ? Because if not, then you do agree with us. Hence all your rationalizations. Lame ones at that. If God commanded me to murder an innocent person, and I refused...would I be sinning against God ? The answer is yes. Of course it is.

 

There is a difference between worshiping a "God" and doing the right thing. God need not embody that. He allows certain indulgences because of our human needs. "Burn the witch".

 

I actually don't believe that our Christian friend doesn't see this distinction; nor am I naiive. He's just reluctant to agree that we are right in principle; but wants there to be a justification that just isn't there.

[Shyone]

There is a difference between worshiping a "God" and doing the right thing.

That statement is the essence of why there is no biblegod, and hence no heaven, hell, miracles, salvation, Jesus or any of the other imaginary problems.

 

Unless "God" is something very different from anything man has ever written about, there is no god.

[Neon Genesis]

Why does OT God need a defense in the first place ? He's God. He can do whatever he wants. He created everything, so he can muck with it all he wants. Slay the innocent, reward the guilty (wow, there's a lot of that in the OT)...whatever he does is not subject to our approval or disapproval. He's God.

 

The Christians at my parents' church actually used this argument and were real proud of it. When I was once debating the morality of God's actions in Exodus with them, the bible class teacher flat out said God can murder whoever he wants to because God is perfect and he even used the word murder.

[RationalOkie]

The Christians at my parents' church actually used this argument and were real proud of it. When I was once debating the morality of God's actions in Exodus with them, the bible class teacher flat out said God can murder whoever he wants to because God is perfect and he even used the word murder.

 

Based upon that argument they don't need apologetics then. They should just put that on their web sites and go back to preaching to the flock. No need to publish books or spend money 'defending' the faith because it doesn't need defending.

[Antlerman]

Ah, so here's how LNC feels about this. It amounts to nothing more than a parroting of his respected idol:

 

So, if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, then he had to have a just reason for doing so and therefore, it would not be committing murder on the part of the Israelites. Murder is the taking of innocent life and for some reason, God deemed the lives of the Canaanites to be guilty.

 

 

How sad that all this logic has not led to any true rational thought.

[centauri]

Ah, so here's how LNC feels about this. It amounts to nothing more than a parroting of his respected idol:

 

So, if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, then he had to have a just reason for doing so and therefore, it would not be committing murder on the part of the Israelites. Murder is the taking of innocent life and for some reason, God deemed the lives of the Canaanites to be guilty.

 

 

How sad that all this logic has not led to any true rational thought.

But it sure is a wonderfuly airtight system that has comforted the minds of people who crave a supernatural security blanket.

All you have to do is imagine that you've aligned yourself with an all-powerful deity that will take care of you for eternity.

Whatever the deity does must be right by definition.

When believers and apologists praise and worship their version of "God", they are really glorifiying their ideas about the object of their worship, which is an indirect way of praising themselves.

It's vanity dressed in a cloak of pious humility.

[Guest end3]

When believers and apologists praise and worship their version of "God", they are really glorifiying their ideas about the object of their worship, which is an indirect way of praising themselves.

It's vanity dressed in a cloak of pious humility.

 

I disagree, my behavior was diametrically opposed to what I worship as God. And let's please not bring up vanity.

[centauri]

When believers and apologists praise and worship their version of "God", they are really glorifiying their ideas about the object of their worship, which is an indirect way of praising themselves.

It's vanity dressed in a cloak of pious humility.

 

I disagree, my behavior was diametrically opposed to what I worship as God. And let's please not bring up vanity.

Is it still diametrically opposed?

I brought up vanity because that's the charge often leveled at those that don't agree with the airtight logic behind a deity that can exhibit any behavior and have it proclaimed "holy" by definition.

[Guest end3]

Is it still diametrically opposed?

 

No, not so much anymore. Why do you ask?

 

I brought up vanity because that's the charge often leveled at those that don't agree with the airtight logic behind a deity that can exhibit any behavior and have it proclaimed "holy" by definition.

 

I didn't read that into your first statement, but I understand now, thanks.

[dagnarus]

Ah, so here's how LNC feels about this. It amounts to nothing more than a parroting of his respected idol:

 

So, if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, then he had to have a just reason for doing so and therefore, it would not be committing murder on the part of the Israelites. Murder is the taking of innocent life and for some reason, God deemed the lives of the Canaanites to be guilty.

 

 

How sad that all this logic has not led to any true rational thought.

 

What really gets me on all this is the argument that the only explanation for human morality is it being put there by a just creator (our conscience). If the first reaction of our conscience when confronted with YWHW's order to slaughter every single Caananite including children is utter revulsion, wouldn't that suggest that YWHW is not our creator. After all if he was then our conscience would immediately look upon all his doing and say "yes, that's right".

[Shyone]

When believers and apologists praise and worship their version of "God", they are really glorifiying their ideas about the object of their worship, which is an indirect way of praising themselves.

It's vanity dressed in a cloak of pious humility.

 

I disagree, my behavior was diametrically opposed to what I worship as God. And let's please not bring up vanity.

Tell us again exactly how God is supposed to be the source of morality and our example for behavior.

[Antlerman]

Ah, so here's how LNC feels about this. It amounts to nothing more than a parroting of his respected idol:

 

So, if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, then he had to have a just reason for doing so and therefore, it would not be committing murder on the part of the Israelites. Murder is the taking of innocent life and for some reason, God deemed the lives of the Canaanites to be guilty.

 

 

How sad that all this logic has not led to any true rational thought.

 

What really gets me on all this is the argument that the only explanation for human morality is it being put there by a just creator (our conscience). If the first reaction of our conscience when confronted with YWHW's order to slaughter every single Caananite including children is utter revulsion, wouldn't that suggest that YWHW is not our creator. After all if he was then our conscience would immediately look upon all his doing and say "yes, that's right".

If the argument is sound, that morality comes from a higher Source, then the conclusion must be that the deity described in the OT is not that Source. He would have to argue that our morality today, where we eschew this sort of thing that is described, is a falling away from the higher morality of the Genocide described in the OT.

 

It is perfectly illogical to say that that Source could act in deviation from Morality - so much so that our moral sense is offended and outraged at it. He would of necessity have to argue that our moral sense should revert to and adopt an ethnocentric world view that validates the murder of other humans outside our group identity. No other choice.

 

If God is the Source, then it would be higher than our morality, not beneath it to the point we have to rationalize it away to appease our moral discomfort with it, not just confusion about some higher truth. It is a morally and rationally inconsistent argument.

 

So what does LNC prefer? To accept man alone as the source of morality, or find a different deity that can be that Source; a deity that never offends morality?

[NotBlinded]

It's vanity dressed in a cloak of pious humility.

I love that! Can I steal it?

 

It also reminds me of a Todd Rundgren song God Said.

 

Here's the last two verses:

 

 

Is it my fear, is it my pride, is it my vanity?

Should your name just be denied to save my sanity?

What is the price I need to pay to have

What others seem to grasp so easily?

Pity your servant your slave

Who'll kiss, kiss your feet to be saved

Save me, save me...

And god said

 

You are not serving me, you're serving something else

Cause I don't need to be pleased, just get over yourself

You can't suck up to me, I know you all too well

But I don't dwell upon you, so get over yourself

Cause you're not praying to me, you're praying to yourself

And you're not worshipping me you're worshipping yourself

And you will kill in my name and heaven knows what else

When you can't prove I exist so get over yourself

 

 

Fits what you said exactly, yet it's horribly sad at the same time. This humility is never associated with vanity in any believer's mind I would say. The connection isn't made. It sucks that they can't see this. I didn't until I was out. Oh the horrors of what this does to people's minds...

[Abiyoyo]

If the argument is sound, that morality comes from a higher Source, then the conclusion must be that the deity described in the OT is not that Source. He would have to argue that our morality today, where we eschew this sort of thing that is described, is a falling away from the higher morality of the Genocide described in the OT.

 

I see this the same as to a parent and a child. A parent tells a child not to lie. The parent lies about something to the child, and the child figures out it is a lie, and the child says the parent is a liar. What the child didn't know is that this adult shouldn't tell the child, voluntarily, what was lied about, and has a reason for the lie. The example is that a family member was raped. That isn't something that I would tell my child about, yet the child was told by someone else, thus the impression that the parent has lied is in place.

 

Now, this doesn't mean that as a parent, my morality in raising children is zero; it is actually the opposite. By not bringing this scene into my child's mind, I was doing the job of a good parent.

 

Could the morality of God be comparable to this example? The murder, genocide thing is a tough one to argue. BUT, if that is what really happened, and God told them to do it; Why is it God's false morality that is the blaming factor? If God is God, and holds the time of life given to each person; then isn't it just a simple, God is God. He tell us not to murder one another, but that doesn't exactly mean He can't take His own from the Earth by whichever means He chooses? Is death and murder applied to God? Why?

[NotBlinded]

If the argument is sound, that morality comes from a higher Source, then the conclusion must be that the deity described in the OT is not that Source. He would have to argue that our morality today, where we eschew this sort of thing that is described, is a falling away from the higher morality of the Genocide described in the OT.

 

I see this the same as to a parent and a child. A parent tells a child not to lie. The parent lies about something to the child, and the child figures out it is a lie, and the child says the parent is a liar. What the child didn't know is that this adult shouldn't tell the child, voluntarily, what was lied about, and has a reason for the lie. The example is that a family member was raped. That isn't something that I would tell my child about, yet the child was told by someone else, thus the impression that the parent has lied is in place.

 

Now, this doesn't mean that as a parent, my morality in raising children is zero; it is actually the opposite. By not bringing this scene into my child's mind, I was doing the job of a good parent.

 

Could the morality of God be comparable to this example? The murder, genocide thing is a tough one to argue. BUT, if that is what really happened, and God told them to do it; Why is it God's false morality that is the blaming factor? If God is God, and holds the time of life given to each person; then isn't it just a simple, God is God. He tell us not to murder one another, but that doesn't exactly mean He can't take His own from the Earth by whichever means He chooses? Is death and murder applied to God? Why?

I would tell my child the truth if a family member was raped. Why would I lie about that? Is the reason to keep the child in a safe and secure mind-set? What good comes from this type of lie?

 

Besides, this analogy isn't exactly right. You would have to be the rapist in order to make it more accurate.