Slaughter of the Canaanites

virmilitaris

William Lane Craig's recent post on his site regarding the genocide against the Canaanites et al.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

Extract: (6th last paragraph)

William Craig wrote:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

So god did no wrong by calling for the murder of these children because they went to heaven, nor did he do any wrong for calling for genocide against the adults because they were evil and the greatest 'wrong' Craig can find in all of this is the wrong done to the poor Israeli soldiers who were forced to "break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children".

Craig is a famous apologist so I want to ask people here what their opinion is of A) the incidents in the bible and Craigs post which I have linked to and C) Is anything wrong that can't be considered right if god calls for it ?

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

Craig is a famous apologist so I want to ask people here what their opinion is of A) the incidents in the bible

As for the incidents in the Bible, I simply do not know why God ordered that. For me it is the major thing in the Bible that I fail to understand but trust that one day I will understand it better.

and Craigs post which I have linked to

I think Craig's comments are pretty idiotic tbh. His attempt at theodicy here is a failure in my book.

and C) Is anything wrong that can't be considered right if god calls for it ?

This where some of the anti-Christians take a flying leap of logic and try to link Christians' views of something that happened in the past with what might happen in the future.

Christians believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, is the fullest revelation of God that we can have (Hebrews 1:1). Therefore any claim that God is calling for anything must be judged in the light of the precepts of the New Testament (honesty, love, turning the other cheek etc.).

So, a Christian's belief in the inspiration of the entire Bible may well lead them to make some pretty staggering attempts (like that of Craig) in trying to explain acts of violence in the OT. But their understanding of the NT should lead them to reject as false any claim that God is calling anyone to act violently today.

So, although we get the occasional troll who argues "anyone who justifies the slaughter of the Canaanites thousands of years ago is liable to do something similar next week" hopefully this thread will be spared such muppetry.

Zombrex

virmilitaris wrote: »

C) Is anything wrong that can't be considered right if god calls for it ?

C seems the most common on this forum, that by definition God cannot wrong someone, no matter what he does, because right and wrong are defined against God and his actions. If God tortures and kills innocent children it is good that he did this, it does not require an excuse or justification, it simply is good by definition.

I'm not a Christian by the way, but have had this discussion many many times. Not all Christians accept C of course, but it is odd that Craig argues like this because in the past I've seen him argue C. Perhaps the notion that a terrible thing like the savage death of a child at the hands of a sword can simply be good, without any further justification, doesn't sit well with him and he feels the need to justify it externally to itself.

himnextdoor

virmilitaris wrote: »

Craig is a famous apologist so I want to ask people here what their opinion is of A) the incidents in the bible and Craigs post which I have linked to and C) Is anything wrong that can't be considered right if god calls for it ?

A) Abraham demonstrates what faith can drive a man to do, almost. The cruel and terrible fate of the Canaanites is not justifiable and anyone that says that it is isn't thinking. Faith may have made those Israelies blind to the wrong they were doing but it is they who did it, not God (Although many of them might have suffered horrible nightmares after it). I don't think that God 'does' genocide but if He does, I suppose it might be best to be one of His people.

PDN dealt with that.

C) Wicknight dealt with that and I would just add that God, according to the Bible, seems 'changeable', moody; one minute He wants us to go forth and multply, the next He wants to drown us all; one minute He sees that what He has created is good and the next it is evil and must be destroyed. Then He feels sorry for us and promises not to do it again.

So, I think it is okay to say that God is wrong but only if God says that He is wrong.

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

As for the incidents in the Bible, I simply do not know why God ordered that. For me it is the major thing in the Bible that I fail to understand but trust that one day I will understand it better.

But this is what really confuses me.

You believe (presumably) that the deity in the bible is perfect and good. That the bible is the word of this deity and that it's all true and there are no contradictions.

But you are now confronted with evidence that A) god might not be perfect or good B)The bible isn't all true nor without contradictions or C) that anything evil can be considered 'good' if god has demanded it.

But you instead take the 'god works in mysterious ways' approach and I don't understand why. The 'evil' acts god demanded or asked for in the bible (OT) are not few and far between so I would have presumed that you would need to take a position on them in order to understand your deity.

For example. How can you say he's good or perfect ? How do you know that ? How do you balance that with the 'evil' acts from the OT ?

I think Craig's comments are pretty idiotic tbh. His attempt at theodicy here is a failure in my book.

Thank you.

So, a Christian's belief in the inspiration of the entire Bible may well lead them to make some pretty staggering attempts (like that of Craig) in trying to explain acts of violence in the OT. But their understanding of the NT should lead them to reject as false any claim that God is calling anyone to act violently today.

But you do believe that in the past (OT) god was not so forgiving etc ?
Isn't Jesus coming again ? Perhaps he mightn't be too happy with us and decide to go back to OT days ? Is that not a possibility ?

btw I don't particularly care about asking how christians would view this in the future, I'm only expanding on it because you mentioned it.

I'm after how they reconcile the OT with their beliefs now.

So, although we get the occasional troll who argues "anyone who justifies the slaughter of the Canaanites thousands of years ago is liable to do something similar next week" hopefully this thread will be spared such muppetry.

While I agree that it's highly unlikely and many of the reasons would no longer exist for wiping tribes out etc. I don't see why they would justify it thousands of years ago either.

From a mainstream perspective why was it OK to wipe out the Canaanites thousands of years ago ?

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

But this is what really confuses me.

You believe (presumably) that the deity in the bible is perfect and good. That the bible is the word of this deity and that it's all true and there are no contradictions.

But you are now confronted with evidence that A) god might not be perfect or good B)The bible isn't all true nor without contradictions or C) that anything evil can be considered 'good' if god has demanded it.

But you instead take the 'god works in mysterious ways' approach and I don't understand why. The 'evil' acts god demanded or asked for in the bible (OT) are not few and far between so I would have presumed that you would need to take a position on them in order to understand your deity.

For example. How can you say he's good or perfect ? How do you know that ? How do you balance that with the 'evil' acts from the OT ?

I would liken this to a situation where a young child knows that their father loves them, yet has a disturbing memory of the time their father took them into a white room and allowed a man in a white coat to stick a needle into their arm. The incident with the needle (a vaccination) makes no sense whatsoever to the child, but everything that they know about their father leads them to a place where they still trust their father.

There are a very few things in the Old Testament that make no sense to me. But everything else I have experienced about God and know about God tells me that He is good. Therefore that leaves me with several possibilities:

a) That my beliefs about the nature of the Bible are mistaken and that it contains some errors. (If this turned out to be true it would distress me, but would not destroy the basis of my Christianity)

b) That my sinful nature, imperfect understanding or limited intellect prevent me from realising why an action was necessary in the OT. (I must say that my theological studies have given me the background info that has helped me understand certain things in the OT which previously seemed pointless or arbitrary)

c) That God is not really good at all.

As with most things in life, no alternative is completely pat and neat. Each one would involve ignoring evidence. In my opinion, when I way up all my information and experiences, (b) is most likely, (a) is less likely, and (c) is the least likely of all.

But you do believe that in the past (OT) god was not so forgiving etc ?
Isn't Jesus coming again ? Perhaps he mightn't be too happy with us and decide to go back to OT days ? Is that not a possibility ?

I don't believe God just forgives anyone willy-nilly irrespective of whether they repent or not.

If you refuse Jesus' offer of forgiveness and mercy then I would not be surprised at all if Jesus returns and deals with you in a way that you will find very unpleasant. That is not Old Testament - that is very New Testament.

While I agree that it's highly unlikely and many of the reasons would no longer exist for wiping tribes out etc. I don't see why they would justify it thousands of years ago either.

From a mainstream perspective why was it OK to wipe out the Canaanites thousands of years ago ?

I've already said I don't know.

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

I would liken this to a situation where a young child knows that their father loves them, yet has a disturbing memory of the time their father took them into a white room and allowed a man in a white coat to stick a needle into their arm. The incident with the needle (a vaccination) makes no sense whatsoever to the child, but everything that they know about their father leads them to a place where they still trust their father.

But you are not talking from the perspective of the victims here. The OT god ordered the Canaanites utterly destroyed and I'm presuming (maybe incorrectly) that you don't believe they ended up in heaven afterwards.

This wasn't a cure (vaccination) for them, it was extermination.

Just to speak of another incident to highlight this. What about god ordering Jephthah to kill his own daughter for apparently no reason (open to correction) ?

Therefore that leaves me with several possibilities:

a) That my beliefs about the nature of the Bible are mistaken and that it contains some errors. (If this turned out to be true it would distress me, but would not destroy the basis of my Christianity)

Honestly I can't see how you can reconcile your beliefs any other way. I understand the way you and other christians defend the historicity of the NT scriptures and that there are some genuinely good points in its defense but surely you can see that the same does not and cannot apply to the OT. Parts of the OT are so very clearly written by men, by a tribe of men holding their god above others in a political fashion.

c) That God is not really good at all.

Well in fairness, Craig (and others) have stated previously that what is 'good' is decided by god so while I don't accept it myself, if you believe in god isn't that still an option ? Your moral compass is 'set' for the 20th - 21st century so you see these past events as 'evil' whereas god set the early Israelites moral compass in a different fashion ?

(b) is most likely, (a) is less likely, and (c) is the least likely of all.

I really do not understand this at all.

Why couldn't the OT be full of errors / re-edits etc ? It seems so obvious that it was written, or at least edited, to be politically favorable for the Israelites. Would it really impact your faith to say many parts of the OT are complete fabrications so god didn't actually do x, y and z which you weren't particularly fond of anyways ?

If (for example) the part of the OT describing god commanding the genocide of the Canaanites was never there or was lost over time would it make any difference to christians today ? .

I've already said I don't know.

No I didn't mean your opinion, I meant is there a mainstream (Catholic, Church of England, Calvinist etc) opinion on it ?

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

But you are not talking from the perspective of the victims here. The OT god ordered the Canaanites utterly destroyed and I'm presuming (maybe incorrectly) that you don't believe they ended up in heaven afterwards.

This wasn't a cure (vaccination) for them, it was extermination.

I think you're rather stretching an incidental detail of an illustration.

The point was that we sometimes lack the knowledge to understand why an action, that appears bad to us, was actually taken.

Just to speak of another incident to highlight this. What about god ordering Jephthah to kill his own daughter for apparently no reason (open to correction) ?

God didn't order any such thing. Jephthah made a stupid vow, (and, if he did kill his daughter he did it in direct contradiction to the Law). Biblical scholars disagree as to whether Jephthah killed his daughter or devoted her to some sort of perpetual virginity in religious service (a bit like a nun today).

Honestly I can't see how you can reconcile your beliefs any other way. I understand the way you and other christians defend the historicity of the NT scriptures and that there are some genuinely good points in its defense but surely you can see that the same does not and cannot apply to the OT. Parts of the OT are so very clearly written by men, by a tribe of men holding their god above others in a political fashion.

You are entitled to your opinion. I can't see how many non-Christians can believe the things they do.

My study of the Old Testament does not lead me to your conclusion.

Well in fairness, Craig (and others) have stated previously that what is 'good' is decided by god so while I don't accept it myself, if you believe in god isn't that still an option ? Your moral compass is 'set' for the 20th - 21st century so you see these past events as 'evil' whereas god set the early Israelites moral compass in a different fashion ?

I regard Craig's position as a slippery slope by which our notions of 'good and evil' become relativistic. I also think it is a bit of a cop out to avoid wrestling with genuine difficulties in the faith.

I really do not understand this at all.

Why couldn't the OT be full of errors / re-edits etc ? It seems so obvious that it was written, or at least edited, to be politically favorable for the Israelites. Would it really impact your faith to say many parts of the OT are complete fabrications so god didn't actually do x, y and z which you weren't particularly fond of anyways ?

If (for example) the part of the OT describing god commanding the genocide of the Canaanites was never there or was lost over time would it make any difference to christians today ? .

I think you're missing the point. My position is not based on what I feel I need to believe to maintain my faith. My position is based on my studies of biblical literature at post-graduate level.

No I didn't mean your opinion, I meant is there a mainstream (Catholic, Church of England, Calvinist etc) opinion on it ?

I don't think so. There are different opinions and each person makes up his or her own mind.

wolfsbane

virmilitaris wrote: »

William Lane Craig's recent post on his site regarding the genocide against the Canaanites et al.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

Extract: (6th last paragraph)

So god did no wrong by calling for the murder of these children because they went to heaven, nor did he do any wrong for calling for genocide against the adults because they were evil and the greatest 'wrong' Craig can find in all of this is the wrong done to the poor Israeli soldiers who were forced to "break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children".

Craig is a famous apologist so I want to ask people here what their opinion is of A) the incidents in the bible and Craigs post which I have linked to and C) Is anything wrong that can't be considered right if god calls for it ?

A. God is just, and justly determines when and how every one of us depart this life. He is our Creator and holds full rights on our life. Moreover, He justly condemns the wicked, and justly visits judgement on them when He pleases.

B. I think Craig errs when he speaks of the soldiers being victimised. They did what was right, even if difficult, and could expect grace from Him not to be brutalised by the killings. I think he was right about the fate of children - national sin often brings suffering on innocent and guilty alike, because they are part of the sinful nation.

C. Things that are wrong in our eyes may not be wrong in God's - He knows all the facts. Things that are indeed wrong for us to initiate may not be wrong for God to do - He is the Ruler, and has those rights and responsibilities. Just as it would be wrong for me to wage war against a national enemy, but not wrong for my state to do so.

*******************************************************************************
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

B. I think Craig errs when he speaks of the soldiers being victimised. They did what was right, even if difficult, and could expect grace from Him not to be brutalised by the killings. I think he was right about the fate of children - national sin often brings suffering on innocent and guilty alike, because they are part of the sinful nation.

What evil were the Canaanites guilty of? It's not as if they were breaking into huts and hacking women and children to death is it?

I think it is a terrible thing that genocide can be deemed a good thing by anyone at anytime for any reason. The precedent is set, isn't it? I wonder when God will tell someone to commit genocide again.

We should try to avoid prophecy not fulfill it; it's a warning, not fate.

Toby Take a Bow

himnextdoor wrote: »

What evil were the Canaanites guilty of? It's not as if they were breaking into huts and hacking women and children to death is it?

Maybe they were, but it never made it into the Bible?

I don't get the argument re the babies getting into heaven. I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus' resurrection led to the possibility of salvation. I was under the impression that He didn't backdate it, so that all the good people before him (with possible exceptions, maybe) were excluded from the option of going to heaven. So, wouldn't all the Canaanite babies just go to hell?

Also, if Craig is right in his argument, shouldn't God have just murdered all heathen babies throughout the world?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

What evil were the Canaanites guilty of? It's not as if they were breaking into huts and hacking women and children to death is it?

Of course they were. That was what everybody did in warfare back then. That doesn't make it right, of course, but the Israelites were far from being unique in their violence.

I think it is a terrible thing that genocide can be deemed a good thing by anyone at anytime for any reason. The precedent is set, isn't it? I wonder when God will tell someone to commit genocide again.

Obviously my previously expressed hope that we could avoid this kind of muppetry in this thread was in vain.

PDN

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I don't get the argument re the babies getting into heaven. I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus' resurrection led to the possibility of salvation. I was under the impression that He didn't backdate it, so that all the good people before him (with possible exceptions, maybe) were excluded from the option of going to heaven. So, wouldn't all the Canaanite babies just go to hell?

This is misunderstanding the Christian message on so many levels.
a) Most Christians believe that babies who die go to heaven.
b) Christ's death certainly provided the way for many of those who lived BC to be saved.
c) It wasn't (and isn't) so much about being good as about putting your faith in God. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Also, if Craig is right in his argument, shouldn't God have just murdered all heathen babies throughout the world?

That is certainly a huge flaw in his argument - particularly for anyone who reduces the Gospel to a very narrow concept of how to get to heaven and little else.

Turtwig

I apologise for the bluntness of this remark as this is a really interesting topic but the thing is when it comes to discussing matters of the Christian faith using William's Lane Craig is a bad idea. Yeah, sure the guy's arguments are popular ones, but that's doesn't mean they are worthy of merit. Fanny Craddock gave me some excellent resources to theologian answers, I'll see if I can find them before s/he inevitably mentions them.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

Of course they were. That was what everybody did in warfare back then. That doesn't make it right, of course, but the Israelites were far from being unique in their violence.

Really? Who else carried out an agenda of genocide? The Egyptians weren't doing that. Conquering is one thing but genocide is something different. And fairly unique to my mind.

PDN wrote: »

Obviously my previously expressed hope that we could avoid this kind of muppetry in this thread was in vain.

Taking a strong stance against genocide is muppetry?

And to think I was banned for suggesting that some people may be xenophobic.

Genocide is wrong, wrong, wrong and God never told anyone to commit genocide.

Do you even understand the implications of saying that there can be justification for genocide? Look at the world and say, sometimes genocide can be right.

I'll tell you what, there are going to be a few surprises come judgement day; Jesus must be tearing His hair out when He sees how His words have been twisted.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Taking a strong stance against genocide is muppetry?

No, the muppetry is suggesting that someone's religious view of an event that occurred thousands of years ago under a different covenant is somehow going to lead to genocide in the future.

I knew from past experience that such clap-trap was likely to derail this thread and take us down the road of hysterical accusations. Other posters respected that. You did not, with predictable results.

Now, let's be clear about this. (I'm putting this in bold so you understand it is a moderating instruction) This thread is discussing how Christians view or justify the actions of the Israelites against the Canaanites. That will be impossible if we have silly accusations that anyone is somehow facilitating genocide in the future. If you can't post in this thread without going down that route then I am strongly advising you not to post.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

I apologise for the bluntness of this remark as this is a really interesting topic but the thing is when it comes to discussing matters of the Christian faith using William's Lane Craig is a bad idea. Yeah, sure the guy's arguments are popular ones, but that's doesn't mean they are worthy of merit. Fanny Craddock gave me some excellent resources to theologian answers, I'll see if I can find them before s/he inevitably mentions them.

I can't recall what inks you are talking about

On another note, I personally don't get WLC. Yes, he is a fantastic debater, and it seems to me that anyone opponent who fails to prepare does so at the peril of losing a debate, but I find his approach to apologetics a little dry. He actually comes across as a very amiable man and I would love to see more from WLC the person, rather than WLC the philosopher.

All in all, I'd rather read or listen to something by John Lennox, Vinoth Ramachandra, Tom Wright and a number of others because not only do they put up and intelligent and reasoned defence of Christianity they also keep it squarely Christ focused.

Different strokes, I guess.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

I knew from past experience that such clap-trap was likely to derail this thread and take us down the road of hysterical accusations. Other posters respected that. You did not, with predictable results.

Jesus was atoning for something and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the slaughter of the Canaanites was one such thing.

Jesus' appearance on Earth was out of necessity, an antidote to sin but what sin?

It may have even been the case that Jesus recognised that the word of His Father had been corrupted; that His Father's name was being associated with acts of great evil. A new approach was required and this would explain the difference between OT and NT covenants.

I am absolutely convinced that Jesus would not have condoned the slaughter of the Canaanites.

Where in the Bible does Jesus glorify the massacres carried out by His ancestors in the name of His Father?

Why would God abandon the Israelites and instead nominate Christians as the 'Chosen Ones'? Hasn't God effectively turned His back on the Jews?

If so, He must have been very displeased by them and it probably wasn't just because they profited on the Sabbath.

Toby Take a Bow

PDN wrote: »

This is misunderstanding the Christian message on so many levels.
a) Most Christians believe that babies who die go to heaven.
b) Christ's death certainly provided the way for many of those who lived BC to be saved.
c) It wasn't (and isn't) so much about being good as about putting your faith in God. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

I think points a and b aren't necessarily true. The existence of purgatory up until a few years ago in Catholic faith would suggest that not all Christians believed babies went to heaven. There's also a lot of argument about whether Christ's salvation type thing resulted in people from before his time being saved.

Quo Vadis

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

The existence of purgatory up until a few years ago in Catholic faith

?

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

There's also a lot of argument about whether Christ's salvation type thing resulted in people from before his time being saved.

?
I think you need to brush up on the basics of Catholicism.

Quo Vadis

The land of Canaan became saturated with detestable practices of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. The Canaanite lifestyle was extraordinarily base and degraded, their “sacred poles” evidently being phallic symbols, and many of the rites at their “high places” involving gross sexual excesses and depravity. (Ex 23:24; 34:12, 13; Nu 33:52; De 7:5) Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.” (Le 18:2-25)

God was extraordinarily patient with them.

God warned them for over 400 years to repent ... to turn from their depravity.

Despite all this, they did not, so God judged them using Israel's sword, and set an example to all mankind that one day, despite being as patient loving and merciful as he is, his mercy patience and love is not for abusing.

Sooner or later, God always delivers his judgement, there is always a day of reckoning for all acts.

Toby Take a Bow

Quo Vadis wrote: »

?

?
I think you need to brush up on the basics of Catholicism.

Purgatory, as a place or as a process, would suggest that salvation was not immediate for those born without receiving Jesus' salvation.

A quick online check would find that there is much argument over salvation for those born before Jesus' time.

Quo Vadis

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Purgatory, as a place or as a process, would suggest that salvation was not immediate for those born without receiving Jesus' salvation.

A quick online check would find that there is much argument over salvation for those born before Jesus' time.

I take it you mean Limbo and Limbo of the fathers, rather than purgatory ?

There is no official Catholic doctrine on Limbo, and never has been, only possible theological positions.

himnextdoor

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The land of Canaan became saturated with detestable practices of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. The Canaanite lifestyle was extraordinarily base and degraded, their “sacred poles” evidently being phallic symbols, and many of the rites at their “high places” involving gross sexual excesses and depravity. (Ex 23:24; 34:12, 13; Nu 33:52; De 7:5) Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.” (Le 18:2-25)

I see and if the Canaanites had been a Godly people Moses would have been directed to a different promised land. (How long could he survive in the desert? How far would he have had to lead his people if Canaan hadn't been available?)

When under Egyptian hegemony, Canaan was a peaceful nation, a kind of 'open house' to other cultures and large scale integration had occured. When Abraham arrived in the area, he found a land of milk and honey and hospitality, not poison and bitterness and offensiveness and hence, the Israelites 'coveted' the land.

How come God had no problem with the idolatory record of the Egyptians, weren't they 'sons of Adam' too? Egypt ruled Canaan but God saw fit to punish the weaker nation. If God had 'punished' Egypt instead, He would have dealt with a far larger problem of idolatory behaviour.

It is interesting, and amusing, that you cite the accounts of the perpetrators of genocide as justification of those foul acts. The non-biblical historical accounts of the region tell a vastly different story; the Israelites didn't quite manage to cover their tracks completely.

And I wonder: Where were the Levites when this was going on?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

God was extraordinarily patient with them.

God warned them for over 400 years to repent ... to turn from their depravity.

Despite all this, they did not, so God judged them using Israel's sword, and set an example to all mankind that one day, despite being as patient loving and merciful as he is, his mercy patience and love is not for abusing.

What does that mean: Did God appear to someone and give them a message, wait for four-hundred years then destroy the nation? Did God appear to everybody and warn them regularly, as individuals, over a period of four-hundred years? Surely that is an example of bad parenting; making numerous threats that are not acted upon and allowing the situation to develop where anger takes over and mindless destruction ensues.

Maybe the Canaanites just didn't believe in God, maybe that's why they ignored Him.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Sooner or later, God always delivers his judgement, there is always a day of reckoning for all acts.

So genocide may be justified in the future?

Quo Vadis

himnextdoor wrote: »

I see and if the Canaanites had been a Godly people Moses would have been directed to a different promised land. (How long could he survive in the desert? How far would he have had to lead his people if Canaan hadn't been available?)

When under Egyptian hegemony, Canaan was a peaceful nation, a kind of 'open house' to other cultures and large scale integration had occured. When Abraham arrived in the area, he found a land of milk and honey and hospitality, not poison and bitterness and offensiveness and hence, the Israelites 'coveted' the land.

How come God had no problem with the idolatory record of the Egyptians, weren't they 'sons of Adam' too? Egypt ruled Canaan but God saw fit to punish the weaker nation. If God had 'punished' Egypt instead, He would have dealt with a far larger problem of idolatory behaviour.

It is interesting, and amusing, that you cite the accounts of the perpetrators of genocide as justification of those foul acts. The non-biblical historical accounts of the region tell a vastly different story; the Israelites didn't quite manage to cover their tracks completely.

And I wonder: Where were the Levites when this was going on?

What does that mean: Did God appear to someone and give them a message, wait for four-hundred years then destroy the nation? Did God appear to everybody and warn them regularly, as individuals, over a period of four-hundred years? Surely that is an example of bad parenting; making numerous threats that are not acted upon and allowing the situation to develop where anger takes over and mindless destruction ensues.

Maybe the Canaanites just didn't believe in God, maybe that's why they ignored Him.

So genocide may be justified in the future?

I don't believe your intrested in hearing any answers, but here you are anyway :

Four hundred years before Israel the Bible first mentions the Canaanites in Genesis 15:16. God was watching their growing evil. Their behaviour and religion were both wicked. Genesis 18:16-19:29 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities in Canaan where gangs and swarms attacked people for fun. This evil behaviour was later picked up by the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 18:9-21). It so incensed the rest of Israel they fought a war that almost wiped out the Benjaminites. Canaanite religion involved child sacrifice. It was a practice that increased the more their cities expanded. Unlike other ancient civilizations where such practices died out, the Canaanites perpetuated it.


Perhaps the most important point is that God’s angel did not insist on the total destruction of the Canaanites after the war (Judges 2:1-10). If slaying all the Canaanites was God’s command, the angel would have said so.
God’s angel also said he would no longer drive out the Canaanites since Israel showed little interest in doing so. Because of this disobedience, the Canaanites remaining were now allowed to stay. They would become a test for Israel’s faithfulness to God (Judges 3:1-6). It seems unlikely God would use the Canaanites in this fashion if they were fit only for slaughter.


If genocide was the invasion objective, each town, village or farm destroyed would have been another step of obedience. If Israel had disobeyed, the Bible would have clearly said so. If Israel had obeyed such a command, each act of destruction would have been another victory. The Bible would not have been silent about their faithfulness. Since the Bible gives no hint of either case, it appears unlikely genocide was the objective.


The Canaanite culture was evil and God wanted it removed. But he didn’t want everyone killed. He was not merciless. Gradually driving the Canaanites out of their land and into neighbouring nations where they would be the minority would force them to change their ways (Exodus 23:27-30). http://bibleissues.atspace.com/israel/canaan.htm

wolfsbane

himnextdoor said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
B. I think Craig errs when he speaks of the soldiers being victimised. They did what was right, even if difficult, and could expect grace from Him not to be brutalised by the killings. I think he was right about the fate of children - national sin often brings suffering on innocent and guilty alike, because they are part of the sinful nation.
What evil were the Canaanites guilty of? It's not as if they were breaking into huts and hacking women and children to death is it?

Quo Vadis gave a good summary:
The land of Canaan became saturated with detestable practices of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. The Canaanite lifestyle was extraordinarily base and degraded, their “sacred poles” evidently being phallic symbols, and many of the rites at their “high places” involving gross sexual excesses and depravity. (Ex 23:24; 34:12, 13; Nu 33:52; De 7:5) Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.” (Le 18:2-25)

I think it is a terrible thing that genocide can be deemed a good thing by anyone at anytime for any reason.

If it was of human origin, you would be right. But since it was God - the One who has the right to kill or keep alive any of us - then you are mistaken.

And as Quo Vadis said, genocide was not the plan for all the Canaanites. But I assumed you used genocide in the sense of effectively destroying a people, rather than all the individuals in it. The Amalekites and Midianites were singled out (because of their behaviour) for rigourous destruction.

The precedent is set, isn't it? I wonder when God will tell someone to commit genocide again.

According to the Bible, never. The day of theological rule in typical Israel is passed. Like the day of animal sacrifices, priests and Temple.

When this world next experiences such a mass-extinction, it will be the holy angels doing the killing:
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

We should try to avoid prophecy not fulfill it; it's a warning, not fate.

We should indeed try to avoid the reward of the wicked - and that is why the gospel has been sent to sinners everywhere. "Repent and believe" is the message. Forgiveness and peace with God is the reward.

So it's a warning, but one that carries two very different fates, depending on our response.

****************************************************************************
Romans 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

himnextdoor

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I don't believe your intrested in hearing any answers, but here you are anyway :

Of course I'm interested.

According to the Book of Jubilees, the Israelite conquest of Canaan, and the curse, are attributed to Canaan's steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham's allotment beyond the Nile, and instead "squatting" on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, within the inheritance delineated for Shem.

One of the 613 mitzvot (precisely n. 596) prescribes that no inhabitants of the cities of six Canaanite nations, the same as mentioned in 7:1, minus the Girga****es, were to be left alive.

596 Mitzvot: Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17

Deuteronomy 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

Does that cast a different light?

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

According to the Bible, never. The day of theological rule in typical Israel is passed. Like the day of animal sacrifices, priests and Temple.

And what if God decides that the new covenant, like the ones that were made before it, isn't working?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

And what if God decides that the new covenant, like the ones that were made before it, isn't working?

In that case take it to another forum. Here we are discussing Christian beliefs. According to Christian beliefs the Old Covenant worked perfectly in that it did what it was intended to do, preparing for the coming of Jesus, which in turn initiated the New Covenant which will continue until Jesus returns.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

And what if God decides that the new covenant, like the ones that were made before it, isn't working?

Thankfully, that cannot happen. The OC was dependant on man's natural obedience - 'free-will', if you like. The NC depends on God:
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

Note the 'I will' occurrences. God ensures His people will be faithful.

***********************************************************
Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thankfully, that cannot happen. The OC was dependant on man's natural obedience - 'free-will', if you like. The NC depends on God:
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

Note the 'I will' occurrences. God ensures His people will be faithful.

That is precisely my point; who are God's people?; on whose hearts and minds has He written His law? Has He written His law on my heart and mind? Or Wicknight's, Soul Winner's, yours?

Or is it all mankind? And how do you know?

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

That is precisely my point; who are God's people?; on whose hearts and minds has He written His law? Has He written His law on my heart and mind? Or Wicknight's, Soul Winner's, yours?

Or is it all mankind? And how do you know?

All who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord. The rest remain in their sins, with darkened hearts and minds, opposed to God.

You will find this clearly laid out in the NT, many times. It is not a side-issue for the gospel.

***************************************************************************
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

All who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord. The rest remain in their sins, with darkened hearts and minds, opposed to God.

You will find this clearly laid out in the NT, many times. It is not a side-issue for the gospel.

And yet brother teaches brother; neighbour teaches neighbour; the New Covenant is broken.

Who are the next chosen ones?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

And yet brother teaches brother; neighbour teaches neighbour; the New Covenant is broken.

Who are the next chosen ones?

I think you're rather spectacularly missing the point here.

The Old Testament wasn't broken and discarded. It was fulfilled in that it had achieved its purpose and prepared the way for the coming of Jesus.

The fact that brother still teaches brother etc. demonstrates that the New Covenant has not been fulfilled yet. It is still in force and will remain so until God and man dwell together in the New Jerusalem with a new heaven and a new earth.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

I think you're rather spectacularly missing the point here.

The Old Testament wasn't broken and discarded. It was fulfilled in that it had achieved its purpose and prepared the way for the coming of Jesus.

The fact that brother still teaches brother etc. demonstrates that the New Covenant has not been fulfilled yet. It is still in force and will remain so until God and man dwell together in the New Jerusalem with a new heaven and a new earth.

Oh! Have I?

The Old Testament covenant was unmeetable and this brought about the New Covenant. That is what the Bible says.

As far as:

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

is concerned, who observes this?

I say the world is as God-less now as it was at the beginning of time.

I am not saying that there is no God but I am saying that God is invisible to man.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Oh! Have I?

Yes, you have.

The writer to the Hebrews is making the point, one made in Paul's epistles as well, that the Old Covenant was insufficient for the purpose that contemporary Jews were trying to use it. It could not bring them to salvation without the New Covenant.

As far as: ...... is concerned, who observes this?

Just about no-one, because that is describing the final results of the New Covenant, and we aren't there yet.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

Yes, you have.

The writer to the Hebrews is making the point, one made in Paul's epistles as well, that the Old Covenant was insufficient for the purpose that contemporary Jews were trying to use it. It could not bring them to salvation without the New Covenant.

No! The point is; God made a deal with the Israelites that could not be done.

PDN wrote: »

Just about no-one, because that is describing the final results of the New Covenant, and we aren't there yet.

So when will God's patience, again, be stretched so as to make Him to decide that another 'newer, improved' covenant will be required?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

No! The point is; God made a deal with the Israelites that could not be done.

Which brings us to an impasse as to whether this forum is the right place to discuss your idiosyncratic beliefs that have little or nothing to do with Christian belief.

The Christian belief, which is what this forum exists to discuss, is that the Old Covenant fulfilled its purpose by demonstrating that the Jews could not be justified by the keeping of the Law and so preparing them for the coming of Jesus Christ.

So when will God's patience, again, be stretched so as to make Him to decide that another 'newer, improved' covenant will be required?

Again, the Christian belief is that the New Covenant will continue until its fulfillment with the return of Christ.

If you want to to find anyone willing to discuss your own non-Christian beliefs then I suggest the Spirituality Forum.

This thread is still open for business for anyone who wants to discuss the OP's subject of Christian opinions about the slaughter of the Canaanites.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

And yet brother teaches brother; neighbour teaches neighbour; the New Covenant is broken.

Who are the next chosen ones?

If I may be permitted to give a brief response, even if off-topic?

As I understand the promises of the New Covenant, it is not absence of its members instructing one another that is in view, but the fact that the Covenant includes only those who know God - unlike the Old Covenant.

That is what is being emphasised - the difference between the covenants. Under the Old, converted and unconverted lived as members together. The converted engaged in evangelising the unconverted members of the Covenant. The New Covenant has only converted members. They do not evangelise one another, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’. They instruct and encourage each other as fellow-members.

*****************************************************************************
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Soul Winner

Scenario number 1:

If God exists then He is the definer of what is right and what is wrong. There is no higher objective standard of morals than that. If you disagree with that then please tell us what moral standard is higher than that and why.

Therefore not adhering to this God's definition of right and wrong will have to be accounted for at some time.

That being so, then obeying a command that this God supposedly commanded you to do is fulfilling your moral responsibility.

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone cannot be held against you as doing something wrong no matter what the world He created thinks of it, because He told you to do it.

Scenario number 2:

If God doesn't exist then He can't be the definer of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore who can be?

Not adhering to this non existing God's definition of right and wrong will not have to be accounted for at any time.

Therefore obeying a command from this non existing God is not fulfilling one's moral responsibility, because what are morals without a truly right standard to measure it by?

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone is self delusion for personal gain.

If God doesn't exist then the Israelites only did what every single nation in history that ever coveted land and power did, the Persians, Grecians, Romans, the British, French, Dutch and Germans, so why single the Israelites out? Because they tried to justify it by saying that they had God on their side? Which of the aforementioned empires didn't do that?

As for WLC's remarks on the subject. Probably the worst he's ever made on any subject, which is surprising because he is usually pretty sharp. He should have just used the argument I gave above :pac:

Robert ninja

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone cannot be held against you as doing something wrong no matter what the world He created thinks of it, because He told you to do it.

So ultimately if god says something is right, it's right and following that if god says something is wrong, then it's wrong. Why? Because it's god and it can F you up. So in even simpler terms... might makes right, do as you're told. It's right because I say it's right and it's wrong because I say it's wrong. Now go chop off your foreskin, have a nice day.

This horrible form of dominance means that ANYTHING can be right as long as god says it's right. I disagree wholly. Even if god came to me personally and proved to me it was the christian god and that I wasn't living the life it told me to live in its bible, then said it would forgive all my sins if I just did one good deed by its command and that deed was to muder my family - BUT IT'S OKAY! God is making it a good thing because it says so. I would not obey this god, I would say no and I believe killing my family is a bad thing no matter how many times a god (or in reality, people claiming to know god) say it's right.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then He can't be the definer of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore who can be?

Us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not adhering to this non existing God's definition of right and wrong will not have to be accounted for at any time.

Indeed, we won't be accountable to anything that doesn't exist. But here's the flip side... we exist, and we will be accountable for our actions towards each other, from each other.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore obeying a command from this non existing God is not fulfilling one's moral responsibility, because what are morals without a truly right standard to measure it by?

So we don't listen to inane commands from voices in our heads and instead listen to each other about the standards of morality and measure it in the here and now and with a rich history of many changes in moral standards to study and understand.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone is self delusion for personal gain.

Therefore it's not actually a god commanding you since in no.1 of scenario 2 we conlude there is no god and that the only one commanding you to kill (in most cases) is yourself, for whatever reason it is at the time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then the Israelites only did what every single nation in history that ever coveted land and power did, the Persians, Grecians, Romans, the British, French, Dutch and Germans, so why single the Israelites out? Because they tried to justify it by saying that they had God on their side? Which of the aforementioned empires didn't do that?

... okay.

Fanny Cradock

Robert ninja wrote: »

This horrible form of dominance means that ANYTHING can be right as long as god says it's right. I disagree wholly.

Great! That makes you and the rest of us Christians. Still, I wonder what you think "right" and "wrong" is grounded in if not a transcendent source?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, I wonder what you think "right" and "wrong" is grounded in if not a transcendent source?

Survival of the species in this realm is where "right" and "wrong" are grounded.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

So ultimately if god says something is right, it's right and following that if god says something is wrong, then it's wrong. Why? Because it's god and it can F you up. So in even simpler terms... might makes right, do as you're told. It's right because I say it's right and it's wrong because I say it's wrong. Now go chop off your foreskin, have a nice day.

Yes that is more or less it.

Robert ninja wrote: »

This horrible form of dominance means that ANYTHING can be right as long as god says it's right. I disagree wholly. Even if god came to me personally and proved to me it was the christian god and that I wasn't living the life it told me to live in its bible, then said it would forgive all my sins if I just did one good deed by its command and that deed was to muder my family - BUT IT'S OKAY! God is making it a good thing because it says so. I would not obey this god, I would say no and I believe killing my family is a bad thing no matter how many times a god (or in reality, people claiming to know god) say it's right.

Doing a bad thing for your own sake and doing a bad thing because God told you are two different things. The first is done for selfish reasons and not doing the second one is also done for selfish reasons. Both are self serving and not God serving. Whereas if you do the thing that you don't want to do because God told you then you are fulfilling your moral responsibility. But like I said, this only works if God actually exists. If He doesn't exist then neither action has any ultimate meaning or value, both are equally pointless.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Us.

Who's us? Who's standard do we follow? Who's version of right and wrong to we adopt? Is there a universal definition of right and wrong in the absence of a God who holds you morally responsible for doing actions that are outside His will for you?

Robert ninja wrote: »

Indeed, we won't be accountable to anything that doesn't exist. But here's the flip side... we exist, and we will be accountable for our actions towards each other, from each other.

That's all fine and dandy but what if God does exist? Then what? How do you account for not doing the things that He has said you must do? Claim ignorance? That won't wash. Part of keeping God's law is to know it perfectly and to do it perfectly. If you fall short in this regard then you are a sinner and in need of His grace and forgiveness. He has provided this in Christ and if you reject that then you will be held to account for your short falling condition yourself.

Robert ninja wrote: »

So we don't listen to inane commands from voices in our heads and instead listen to each other about the standards of morality and measure it in the here and now and with a rich history of many changes in moral standards to study and understand.

Why should we live like that? What if people tell you to shove your standard up your wazzoo and start making their own rules on the way everyone should live and behave? What if people decide that they want to live like hippies? That if they want to do something then that means they ought to do it? What then? Should they be left alone to do what they want to do? Who's law do we adapt?

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Survival of the species in this realm is where "right" and "wrong" are grounded.

So killing other tribes is OK once it benefits the survival of your tribe? Is that what you are saying?

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Scenario number 1:

If God exists then He is the definer of what is right and what is wrong. There is no higher objective standard of morals than that. If you disagree with that then please tell us what moral standard is higher than that and why.

Therefore not adhering to this God's definition of right and wrong will have to be accounted for at some time.

That being so, then obeying a command that this God supposedly commanded you to do is fulfilling your moral responsibility.

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone cannot be held against you as doing something wrong no matter what the world He created thinks of it, because He told you to do it.

Scenario number 2:

If God doesn't exist then He can't be the definer of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore who can be?

Not adhering to this non existing God's definition of right and wrong will not have to be accounted for at any time.

Therefore obeying a command from this non existing God is not fulfilling one's moral responsibility, because what are morals without a truly right standard to measure it by?

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone is self delusion for personal gain.

If God doesn't exist then the Israelites only did what every single nation in history that ever coveted land and power did, the Persians, Grecians, Romans, the British, French, Dutch and Germans, so why single the Israelites out? Because they tried to justify it by saying that they had God on their side? Which of the aforementioned empires didn't do that?

As for WLC's remarks on the subject. Probably the worst he's ever made on any subject, which is surprising because he is usually pretty sharp. He should have just used the argument I gave above :pac:

Which like most of your arguments is not an argument at all.

As far as scenarios 1 & 2 are concerned, how is it possible to tell the difference between the two? I mean, if someone is 'divinely inspired' to commit murder, shouldn't they get themselves checked out for paranoid schizophrenia, or something, just in case they are actually mad?

I can just imagine it; a man goes to the doctor and says, 'Voices in my head tell me to kill; am I sick?'. The doctor says, after conducting extensive tests, 'Nope, you are not sick, God really is telling you to kill so off you go and Godspeed you lucky chosen one.'

... Then there is a murder trial and the doctor performs as an expert witness giving evidence to exhonerate the killer. 'He really is doing God's work,' he says, 'and to interfere with him would be an act of great evil.'

Such a doctor would be thought mad and would probably end up being committed himself.

Obviously we are assuming that God would never choose a paranoid schizophrenic to do His work. Imagine how confusing it would be if God did contract His work out to megalomaniacal madmen; we'd end up with wars based on whimsical-ness....

...wait a minute!...

How can one tell; is the American administration mad or is it simply the dutiful servant of God?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Survival of the species in this realm is where "right" and "wrong" are grounded.

That doesn't actually mean anything, does it? Survival isn't necessarily a factor in issues of morality. And prioritizing species isn't a given in a purely materialistic universe driven by impersonal natural forces.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which like most of your arguments is not an argument at all.

As far as scenarios 1 & 2 are concerned, how is it possible to tell the difference between the two? I mean, if someone is 'divinely inspired' to commit murder, shouldn't they get themselves checked out for paranoid schizophrenia, or something, just in case they are actually mad?

I can just imagine it; a man goes to the doctor and says, 'Voices in my head tell me to kill; am I sick?'. The doctor says, after conducting extensive tests, 'Nope, you are not sick, God really is telling you to kill so off you go and Godspeed you lucky chosen one.'

... Then there is a murder trial and the doctor performs as an expert witness giving evidence to exhonerate the killer. 'He really is doing God's work,' he says, 'and to interfere with him would be an act of great evil.'

Such a doctor would be thought mad and would probably end up being committed himself.

Obviously we are assuming that God would never choose a paranoid schizophrenic to do His work. Imagine how confusing it would be if God did contract His work out to megalomaniacal madmen; we'd end up with wars based on whimsical-ness....

...wait a minute!...

How can one tell; is the American administration mad or is it simply the dutiful servant of God?

Please stick within the boundaries of the argument. Let's assume for one minute that a supernatural God does exist and did tell you to do something, not voices in your head, but a real Entity that has demonstrated His existence to you by performing many wonders and delivering you and your people out of bondage in Egypt by actually parting the Red Sea. Now I know you don't believe this happened but just for the sake of this argument assume that it did. Now read my scenarios again with this assumption made and come back to me.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Whereas if you do the thing that you don't want to do because God told you then you are fulfilling your moral responsibility.

No, you would be fulfilling God's moral responsibility.

Why does an all-powerful God need men to do His killing for Him; isn't that just laziness?

God to Moses: "I give you the land of Canaan but before you move in, you must exterminate the current tenants who refuse to be evicted and I don't want to get my hands dirty. They refuse to believe in me and to live by my rules so I'm going to prove to them that I exist by having them slaughtered by a marauding barbarian army that will steam-roller right over them. Then they'll be sorry."

Robert ninja

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes that is more or less it.

Then my point is proven. It's a might make right situation with your christian belief and my moral standard is higher. For me, might does not make right.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Doing a bad thing for your own sake and doing a bad thing because God told you are two different things.

Yep, the difference is... one you're doing a bad thing... and the other is you're doing a bad thing under orders. Both of them... you're doing a bad thing and that's the end of it for me. Don't do bad things, no matter who tells you to. Whether it be that voice in your head (god) or your own mother.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who's us?

You're really hopeless. I'm convinced you're actually trying to be annoying. Us... me, you, everyone. The human race as a species. Us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is there a universal definition of right and wrong in the absence of a God who holds you morally responsible for doing actions that are outside His will for you?

No there isn't a universal right and wrong. Culture and time define the standard of morals. In the days when humans didn't live very long, having sex when you were 14 wasn't bad... it was survival and the ordinary. These days it's considered bad because our environment and culture is different.

As for who holds us morally responsible... once again: Us. I and everyone else will hold you responsible for your actions if you ever do wrong. Which is what we do in reality by the way. Your god has never rewarded or punished anyone... unless you mean after we're dead where it's so conveniently impossible to tell if it really has or not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy but what if God does exist? Then what? How do you account for not doing the things that He has said you must do?

If that's the case, I don't need to justify why I didn't follow its commandments. It is all-knowing, right? It will know why... it will know that I didn't follow any of the lame stuff in the bible because I wasn't convinced it (god) existed... which is its own fault. Having the ability to let everyone know you exist yet not leaving any real evidence that you do is your own fault especially if you can do literally ANYTHING.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you fall short in this regard then you are a sinner and in need of His grace and forgiveness. He has provided this in Christ and if you reject that then you will be held to account for your short falling condition yourself.

Says you. And everything you just mentioned is all fear-mongering that obviously works for you and has you scared enough to believe in such things but not me. I don't fear your god or any other.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why should we live like that? What if people tell you to shove your standard up your wazzoo and start making their own rules on the way everyone should live and behave? What if people decide that they want to live like hippies?

You can go ahead and do that then. And if it turns out awesome, people will follow and agree with you. So far, cities with common law and respect for each other's physical and mental condition is turning out grand. If anyone harms another... we have ways to deal with that. Basically, if you don't obey the set rules in a society the general rule is then that you don't get to be a part of that society.

So you go ahead and try kill someone because they were working on a Sunday. The secular society you currently enjoy the fruits of would come down on your head.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who's law do we adapt?

Whichever one we decide to be fair and the best, typically. That doesn't mean it's perfect, far from it in today's society... but at least we're trying unlike useless people like priests who contribute nothing to society (as far as I can see).

Soul Winner wrote: »

If He doesn't exist then neither action has any ultimate meaning or value, both are equally pointless.

One again, so you say. You can go ahead and tell me the action has no ultimate meaning or value and I can continually give you the finger. In a vast space of mostly nothing... I have enjoyed music and made the ones I love laugh and I'm still young with a lot more experiences ahead of me. That is meaningful to me. I know you need to think you can suck the dick of god for eternity after you die and that'll be great but I don't need that to enjoy and value things in my life. If it's the god of the bible... and the events in that book are true, I'll happily spend eternity in hell just to stay away from that monster and all who follow it. Mind you, that's not the reason why I don't believe any of it. I was an atheist for a good while before I actually read the bible and then I was actually happy that none of it had any evidence to support it.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That doesn't actually mean anything, does it?

LOL. Of course it does. All the seven sins provide a survival edge:

Anger is intimidating and can drive off competition for food or mates,

Jealousy causes food and mates to be guarded,

Sloth saves energy,

Gluttony considers the opportunity to consume resources,

Greed excludes others from those resources,

Lust drives procreation and

Conceit develops and maintains physical appearance and prowess.

All of these 'evolved' tendencies aid survival in the material world; not one has evolved in response to the requirements of the 'next' world which indicates that the 'next' world is invisible to nature and natural selection.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Survival isn't necessarily a factor in issues of morality.

Yes it is.

People with dubious moral standards are thought of as wierdos and this does effect their chances of survival; they become outcasts and consequently the transmission of their genetic material is threatened.

If personal morality is in conflict with social morality then society will seek to supress, through law for example, the personal morality. Questionable morals suggest questionable character and affect the ability to be accepted by society or a prospective mate.

The higher the standard of social morality, the deeper the sense of security and this resonates with the persuit of happiness. Shared values give rise to a 'hive-mentality' and this benefits the survival of the society.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And prioritizing species isn't a given in a purely materialistic universe driven by impersonal natural forces.

What prioritisation are you talking about? Do you think nature operates a handicap system on the survivability of a particular species, that nature has a 'favorite' organism that has been 'picked' to win some kind of race?

Prioritisation in nature is not even a suggestion, never mind a given.