William Lane Craig Justifies Genocide.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I disagree here AM, and also will add that it doesn't have to be rationalized very much. In this world AM, we have laws, law enforcement, lawyers, judges. Which of these would God fall under? Is He not the great Judge?

 

In the Gospels, Jesus spoke about David stealing the show bread. David lied to a priest. So, the hard in stone view of morality has been broken for a long time, and the new philosophy of righteousness unto God was replaced.

 

The scary part is that their are loonies out their that 'think' they are righteously going about whatever they are doing, taking judgment into their own hands. I see it like this. David stole the showbread, he was hungry. An Islamic group flies a plane into World Trade Center, thought he was doing God's work. I have heard some here tease and say that 'they were doing God's work' and use it as comparison to what Christians will do, or have done. I have a Muslim friend that will sit with anyone and explain why that was not what the Quaran says to do.

 

The ultimate problem here is that in the example from the post above; we can't sit down and have a conversation with God as the parent did with the child. BUT, we do have the Word from the people that have worshiped this God for millenniums.

 

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

[Abiyoyo]

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

 

So you would tell your 5-7 year old child that a family member was raped and that is why she walked in with blood on her legs, then explain about what a penis and a vagina are, right?

 

Then your child would go to school, eyes wide open the next day, probably bring that up to the teacher, principal, and then the state would be called in.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

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

 

The analogy pertained to the normal parent that would never tell their adolescent child about a very adult thing of that nature. The parent lying is the analogy.

[NotBlinded]

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

 

So you would tell your 5-7 year old child that a family member was raped and that is why she walked in with blood on her legs, then explain about what a penis and a vagina are, right?

 

Then your child would go to school, eyes wide open the next day, probably bring that up to the teacher, principal, and then the state would be called in.

Yes Abi. My child knows what a penis and vagina are and has since she was probably 4 -5 years old. She's 10 now. And, she knows what rape is. It's only shocking to them if they know nothing about it. She would have no reason to go to school and talk about it. I don't try to protect her from things that will only shock her later if she's never told about them. Information is an arsenal Abi.

[NotBlinded]

 

 

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

 

The analogy pertained to the normal parent that would never tell their adolescent child about a very adult thing of that nature. The parent lying is the analogy.

So, you are calling me abnormal? Maybe so in your Christian, puritan mindset Abi, yet we have all seen the damage done by thinking that way. Pregnant 13 year old daughters of preachers, etc. I will never believe that hiding things from children of that nature does any good at all.

 

Another thing, do you think as yourself as a child before your God? This is why he shouldn't tell you things?

 

Back at ya:

[Abiyoyo]

 

So, you are calling me abnormal? Maybe so in your Christian, puritan mindset Abi, yet we have all seen the damage done by thinking that way. Pregnant 13 year old daughters of preachers, etc. I will never believe that hiding things from children of that nature does any good at all.

 

Another thing, do you think as yourself as a child before your God? This is why he shouldn't tell you things?

 

Back at ya:

 

Maybe it just depends on the area and all, but I have seen the state called about a child's hair not looking combed.

[Abiyoyo]

Maybe so in your Christian, puritan mindset Abi, yet we have all seen the damage done by thinking that way.

 

Okay. So, What would you not tell your child about at those ages? Are you saying that you would tell your child everything or anything?

 

What about blowjobs? If your child walked in and saw that, Would you explain to them what you were doing?

[NotBlinded]

Maybe so in your Christian, puritan mindset Abi, yet we have all seen the damage done by thinking that way.

 

Okay. So, What would you not tell your child about at those ages? Are you saying that you would tell your child everything or anything?

 

What about blowjobs? If your child walked in and saw that, Would you explain to them what you were doing?

If she walked in and saw that don't you think it would require an explanation? What would I say...that he had a sticky on his pee pee and I was trying to clean it off? What the heck would that do except to teach her that this is the way we wash the pee pee? Of course I would explain to her what I was doing.

 

Yes, she knows all about sex and things like this. She learned more as she aged, but not telling her would have made her a little more curious than I would like. As it is, there is nothing to be curious about other than the feeling itself.

 

When she was around 4, her 6 year old cousin talked her into sucking on his pee pee. Explanations were needed.

 

Actually, the Unitarian Church we sometimes go to had a book about sex directed at children. We checked it out and went over it together.

[RationalOkie]

This conversation reminds me of something Dawkins said in "The God Delusion":

 

"Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them....For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot know that 'Don't paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo' is good advice but 'You must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains will fail' is at best a waste of time and goats."

 

Now, Abiyoyo, do you tell your children about the genocide ordered by your god in the OT? Do we have children coming home from church with colored pictures of women and small childrens guts strewn across the battle field and a 'warrior for god' delivering the blows? Of course not. Why? Because everyone knows it's wrong. You can't justify genocide.

[Ouroboros]

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.

Then it isn't absolutely, always, undeniable, indisputable, objective, and consistently always wrong to lie. What you are suggesting is morality with mitigating circumstances, which is... TADA! Subjective.

 

So if God gives absolute and objective morality, then it should be absolute and objective, not subjective and relative.

 

What you are suggesting is God as a command or law giver, not a God with a moral nature from where morality automatically just pours out. Basically, Christians are suggesting two competing and conflicting views on absolute morality, and jump like a rabbit between the two depending on where the discussion is currently going.

 

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?

Sure. No problem. God does whatever he wants, and it should be considered good. But then morality is based on dictum from God. Which is okay too. But then also, it means that our morality does NOT just come naturally from the good and moral character of God, because genocide is part of God's character, and genocide on the level of human actions are immoral.

 

You just can't have it both ways. It can't be that God is good, only do good things, always act morally correct, and it spreads to us, and yet he acts immoral.

[Deva]

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25

 

We can see by God's actions in the Bible that it is plainly not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

[RationalOkie]

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25

 

We can see by God's actions in the Bible that it is plainly not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was that before he flooded the whole earth and killed everybody or afterword?

[chefranden]

...Is death and murder applied to God? Why?

 

Because the bible tells you so.

 

"Be ye perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect."

 

[Antlerman]

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.

Bad analogy. You would have to have the parent commanding the child to rape and kill his sister, because there was a greater truth the child did not know, because "his ways are not your ways, his thoughts are not your thoughts. As high as the heavens are above the earth, etc, etc".

 

God commanded them to kill. God did not do the killing. He commanded it.

 

The lesson taught to humanity is simple: If you believe God commands killing, it's justified. You are not responsible. They were taught killing in God's name is justifiable. That is NOT an instruction in morality.

 

Your analogy has nothing to do with the scenario in the OT.

 

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.

By not commanding the child to rape, you would be an even better parent. This isn't a case of protecting them from knowledge they weren't ready emotionally to process. It's making them perform the act themselves!

 

Scarring them for life would be the result of that. Considerably more wrong morally. Bad parent. The worst kind. A monster.

 

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?

So the lesson to his children was, "You are to be my executioners. I am going to train you to be my soldiers and hand of death to those who are my enemies." Does God have a right to kill at will because he's God and we are his to hug or smash at will because he owns us? You could argue that if you want to, but then why is everything in our morality being pulled to NOT be that?

 

How does that sort of sovereign ownership of others teach morality to us?? It doesn't. Not at all. It sets the example of something opposite, that it is permissible to own others, view them as objects, and dispose of them if we are justified as doing it for that God. How plain is this to see?

 

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.

 

 

 

I disagree here AM, and also will add that it doesn't have to be rationalized very much. In this world AM, we have laws, law enforcement, lawyers, judges. Which of these would God fall under? Is He not the great Judge?

It does have to be rationalized if he is commanding people to kill for him. Is God supposed to be our example for exacting justice in the world? Kill the unbelievers? Judge in his name? This not only calls God's morality into question, it calls his ability to reason and exercise wisdom as well.

 

Are we to say God is the Source of our ability to Judge as well? What lesson was taught to us as the Source of Justice is this, if there was no discernment given as to the cause for their annihilation? The only lesson taught is, "I'm the big guy, and if I say its OK to kill then its alright." This is not a lesson of Justice. Not at all. What's the lesson?

 

 

The scary part is that their are loonies out their that 'think' they are righteously going about whatever they are doing, taking judgment into their own hands.

Exactly. That was the value of the lesson, wasn't it?

 

 

The ultimate problem here is that in the example from the post above; we can't sit down and have a conversation with God as the parent did with the child. BUT, we do have the Word from the people that have worshiped this God for millenniums.

Of course, we don't have his "word". We have the stories of this tribal people with their primitive worldviews that Christians later called an authoritative account of history - which has been proven to not be. No God of any worth would be so muddled in communication if these were meant to be authoritative. These are very simply understood as cultural legends and exaggerations about their heritage as a people, and very difficultly accepted as reflective of some Source of absolute Morality, Wisdom, and Compassion. You have to rape your own mind and soul to accept them as that. God as Light would never demand a violation of Reason.

[NotBlinded]

Sure. No problem. God does whatever he wants, and it should be considered good. But then morality is based on dictum from God. Which is okay too. But then also, it means that our morality does NOT just come naturally from the good and moral character of God, because genocide is part of God's character, and genocide on the level of human actions are immoral.

 

You just can't have it both ways. It can't be that God is good, only do good things, always act morally correct, and it spreads to us, and yet he acts immoral.

Wouldn't that also mean that God's own morality is subjective?

[NotBlinded]

God commanded them to kill. God did not do the killing. He commanded it.

I forgot that.

 

Abi, sorry, you don't have to be the rapist for your analogy. Although after Antlerman's post, it might be the lesser of the two evils.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

The scary part is that their are loonies out their that 'think' they are righteously going about whatever they are doing, taking judgment into their own hands. I see it like this. David stole the showbread, he was hungry. An Islamic group flies a plane into World Trade Center, thought he was doing God's work. I have heard some here tease and say that 'they were doing God's work' and use it as comparison to what Christians will do, or have done. I have a Muslim friend that will sit with anyone and explain why that was not what the Quaran says to do.

 

 

So you're admitting that the bible does command Christians to murder but Islam doesn't and you're admitting that the bible is worse than the Koran but you believe in it anyway? Question, why do you reject the teachings of Paul then?

[Ouroboros]

Wouldn't that also mean that God's own morality is subjective?

You're right. Actually, regardless if our morality stems from God's nature or not, or even if God is a fickle megalomaniac, God would not have any objective morality to lean on, hence his morality would be a subjective one (on the supernatural god-level).

 

And my little addition to "God command them to kill," he did so because of suspected activity. The other people were suspect of being evil. Or more accurately, they were suspect (but not proven) to be murderous villains. So the solution was for God to make Israel to murderous villains too, to get rid of those murderous villains. It's pretty much how we handled getting rid of that evil country where they were torturing people without trial. We just started to do the same thing. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but three lefts do.

[Deva]

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25

 

We can see by God's actions in the Bible that it is plainly not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was that before he flooded the whole earth and killed everybody or afterword?

 

I think it was Abraham talking trying to persuade God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah.

[NotBlinded]

Wouldn't that also mean that God's own morality is subjective?

You're right. Actually, regardless if our morality stems from God's nature or not, or even if God is a fickle megalomaniac, God would not have any objective morality to lean on, hence his morality would be a subjective one (on the supernatural god-level).

I guess it would require another source for morality if God's own morality was objective. That wouldn't work, so let's invent an evil "god" to be the source of all bad things. You know, like deceipt, lies, murder, etc. Wait, God commanded the killing though, not the devil. Something's screwed up somewhere...

[Antlerman]

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Jn. 13:34,35

 

After we've wiped the blood off our swords from slaughtering the heathens in God's name first, that is....

[Abiyoyo]

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.

Then it isn't absolutely, always, undeniable, indisputable, objective, and consistently always wrong to lie. What you are suggesting is morality with mitigating circumstances, which is... TADA! Subjective.

 

So if God gives absolute and objective morality, then it should be absolute and objective, not subjective and relative.

 

What you are suggesting is God as a command or law giver, not a God with a moral nature from where morality automatically just pours out. Basically, Christians are suggesting two competing and conflicting views on absolute morality, and jump like a rabbit between the two depending on where the discussion is currently going.

 

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?

Sure. No problem. God does whatever he wants, and it should be considered good. But then morality is based on dictum from God. Which is okay too. But then also, it means that our morality does NOT just come naturally from the good and moral character of God, because genocide is part of God's character, and genocide on the level of human actions are immoral.

 

You just can't have it both ways. It can't be that God is good, only do good things, always act morally correct, and it spreads to us, and yet he acts immoral.

 

Well, my official position is what it has been all along, and is that the writers just wrote those attributes to God throughout the Bible. I just like to discuss other perspectives.

 

But, yes, I agree. We have different standards as physical creatures in this world. Ethics, Morality. Racism is a good example of human evolved ethics. When early settlers captured slaves to bring to America's they didn't have the necessary communication skills to put themselves as equals to the American culture.

 

After years of adapting and learning, slaves became more educated in the American culture, up into the point where they became 'people' instead of slaves. I say this to the American's that purposed them as a lesser being because they were of different color and language, etc. But, the African- American society developed into what we have today. Today, in America, we have laws and civil rights as apart of an ethical system that is regulated.

 

So, my point is that a majority of Americans in past times would have considered an African slaveholder as ethical whereas by today's standards this would not be allowed. So, human ethics change constantly. Another example is polygamy. Some countries still allow this practice, whereas again it is not allowed in this country.

 

Murder is murder. Death is death. But this is to us as human beings in that we can't see what happens to ones being after they die; but God I would assume has the ability to see the other side. That was my point about the subject.

[Abiyoyo]

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Jn. 13:34,35

 

After we've wiped the blood off our swords from slaughtering the heathens in God's name first, that is....

 

AM, in your last post my analogy was the act of lying, not rape. Your post here, Wouldn't that be the whole point? People where taking judgment into their own hands?

 

Maybe Jesus said these things because the Jews had falsely wrote that God was a director of genocide

[Antlerman]

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Jn. 13:34,35

 

After we've wiped the blood off our swords from slaughtering the heathens in God's name first, that is....

 

Maybe Jesus said these things because the Jews had falsely wrote that God was a director of genocide

I would say he said them because people were ready to move forward culturally from the more tribal mentalities that stories like that represent. It's not that they falsely wrote them, but that their perceptions were more primitive, less evolved.

 

I actually do believe that the Jesus movement was popular because of social reasons, an evolving sense of self from that of ethnocentrism expressed in much of the Jew's traditional stories of themselves. "You heard it said an eye for an eye, but I say unto you..." "The Kingdom of God is within you.." Progress. From tribalism, to self growth. Now fast forward 2000 years... things evolve. Time to progress again.

[Abiyoyo]

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Jn. 13:34,35

 

After we've wiped the blood off our swords from slaughtering the heathens in God's name first, that is....

 

Maybe Jesus said these things because the Jews had falsely wrote that God was a director of genocide

I would say he said them because people were ready to move forward culturally from the more tribal mentalities that stories like that represent. It's not that they falsely wrote them, but that their perceptions were more primitive, less evolved. I actually do believe that the Jesus movement was popular because of social reasons, an evolving sense of self from that of ethnocentrism expressed in much of the Jew's traditional stories of themselves. "You heard it said an eye for an eye, but I say unto you..." Progress. Fast forward 2000 years... things evolve. Time to progress again.

 

So, Jesus saw the forward movement by Caesar and Rome to move forward philosophically, and so decided to join into this 'school of thought' and preached peace. Was that before they fed prisoners to the lions, or after?