Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 29, 2024, 06:17:57 PM
-
There's been a number of videos appearing on my YouTube timeline because of William Lane Craig reiterating his support for genocide in the Bible in discussion with Alex O'connor. So here is the discussion
https://youtu.be/WjsSHd23e0Q?si=SGPQBWZmv_8UYRg1
-
Interesting. Which other atheist ‘slebs refuse to debate WLC?
-
Interesting. Which other atheist ‘slebs refuse to debate WLC?
I imagine quite a number. What significance do you attach to that?
What's your opinion on the Canaanite slaughter?
-
I imagine quite a number. What significance do you attach to that?
What's your opinion on the Canaanite slaughter?
Can you name anyone though? After all Alex O’Connor must have researched Lane Craig’s previous defence and known full well what Lane Craig has said on the subject and yet still went ahead with several discussions with him?Is Dawkins an outlier?
My opinion of the Canaanite slaughter? Generally It would never have happened, assuming it is reported accurately if mankind had not fallen. Given that it did then everything has to be on the basis of the lesser evil i’m Afraid and this is obviously a time of war...something Craig and O’Connor seemed to agree on.
What’s your opinion? Do you see some contemporary connection?Did O’connor Since he’s obviously resurrected the Controversy.
-
Can you name anyone though? After all Alex O’Connor must have researched Lane Craig’s previous defence and known full well what Lane Craig has said on the subject and yet still went ahead with several discussions with him?Is Dawkins an outlier?
My opinion of the Canaanite slaughter? Generally It would never have happened, assuming it is reported accurately if mankind had not fallen. Given that it did then everything has to be on the basis of the lesser evil i’m Afraid and this is obviously a time of war...something Craig and O’Connor seemed to agree on.
What’s your opinion? Do you see some contemporary connection?Did O’connor Since he’s obviously resurrected the Controversy.
It was Dawkins who raised it, as is clear from the clip but here's O'Connor talking to Dawkins which prompted O'Connor to get Craig on.
https://youtu.be/RgApebXSSnM?si=uiECKlcrT6yrWrik
Why is naming people important?
As to the slaughter, you think that your god ordering the killing of all the canaanites, including all the sick, the women, the old, the children, and the livestock is the lesser evil? What is the worse evil in that position? What had the chickens done that your god wanted them slaughtered?
-
Why is naming people important?
To verify your contention
As to the slaughter, you think that your god ordering the killing of all the canaanites, including all the sick, the women, the old, the children, and the livestock is the lesser evil? What is the worse evil in that position? What had the chickens done that your god wanted them slaughtered?
Here you are pitching God as a human General giving orders etc.
If I'm not mistaken your stance is that you don't believe God ordered slaughter on the historical grounds that history is methodologically naturalistic but a believer is constrained to view it in those terms. Firstly, let's run with your notion of God as a very human General.
The defence of actions here could be that used by those who used the atomic bomb on Japan namely that more bloodshed was avoided.
As an argument based on what believers should believe it fails because believers don't believe in the bowdlerised picture of God you are presenting.
God can see the future risks and possible alternatives in an age where you contend whole nations can be wiped out.Also with God death is not the end and so it is not just the children who could be admitted into heaven.
In your argument you are only prepared to have God around for the bad, naturalistic parts. Is that because it suits your antitheism?
At the end of the day your argument limiting God is almost in the same league as arguing God couldn't perform miracles because they didn't have the technology at that time.
-
Can you name anyone though? After all Alex O’Connor must have researched Lane Craig’s previous defence and known full well what Lane Craig has said on the subject and yet still went ahead with several discussions with him?Is Dawkins an outlier?
My opinion of the Canaanite slaughter? Generally It would never have happened, assuming it is reported accurately if mankind had not fallen. Given that it did then everything has to be on the basis of the lesser evil i’m Afraid and this is obviously a time of war...something Craig and O’Connor seemed to agree on.
What’s your opinion? Do you see some contemporary connection?Did O’connor Since he’s obviously resurrected the Controversy.
You're presumably a reasonably decent bloke, so I suggest that you stop trying to defend the indefensible, go with your heart, and admit that parts of the OT are monstrously evil.
-
g882472 date=1711789890]
You're presumably a reasonably decent bloke,[/quote]What makes you say that? so I suggest that you stop trying to defend the indefensible, go with your heart, and admit that parts of the OT are monstrously evil.
[/quote]The only thing I'm defending is my assertion that Nearly Sanes arguments fail and he, like you are left with the argument that his morals are better than God's. Defend that, if you will
I ran with his assumptions that we are to take this literally and that we are to consider God most likely a human military leader or boss figure.
Of course as Christians we now have to view the world from the perspective of what we know and are told about Jesus .
I wonder if Nearly Sane has attempted to get a Jewish perspective on this.
Of course you, me and Nearly Sane are merely armchair generals and have never had to take a military decision in our lives I'll wager.
Let's also remember that accusing God of being evil is not actually an atheist argument
-
so I suggest that you stop trying to defend the indefensible, go with your heart, and admit that parts of the OT are monstrously evil.
The only thing I'm defending is my assertion that Nearly Sanes arguments fail and he, like you are left with the argument that his morals are better than God's. Defend that, if you will
I ran with his assumptions that we are to take this literally and that we are to consider God most likely a human military leader or boss figure.
Of course as Christians we now have to view the world from the perspective of what we know and are told about Jesus .
I wonder if Nearly Sane has attempted to get a Jewish perspective on this.
Of course you, me and Nearly Sane are merely armchair generals and have never had to take a military decision in our lives I'll wager.
Let's also remember that accusing God of being evil is not actually an atheist argument
I'm pointing out an illiogicality in claims about a god. That you're justifying killing children, and the sick, and the old in a massacre means I think you're trolling, or dangerous.
-
Vlad,
Here you are pitching God as a human General giving orders etc.
If I'm not mistaken your stance is that you don't believe God ordered slaughter on the historical grounds that history is methodologically naturalistic but a believer is constrained to view it in those terms. Firstly, let's run with your notion of God as a very human General.
The defence of actions here could be that used by those who used the atomic bomb on Japan namely that more bloodshed was avoided.
As an argument based on what believers should believe it fails because believers don't believe in the bowdlerised picture of God you are presenting.
God can see the future risks and possible alternatives in an age where you contend whole nations can be wiped out.Also with God death is not the end and so it is not just the children who could be admitted into heaven.
In your argument you are only prepared to have God around for the bad, naturalistic parts. Is that because it suits your antitheism?
At the end of the day your argument limiting God is almost in the same league as arguing God couldn't perform miracles because they didn't have the technology at that time.
This is just a long-winded way of asserting a god of the omnis, therefore a just god even though we feeble humans can’t fathom why, say, a god-ordered genocide is a moral good. It’s a get out of jail free piece of casuistry that tries to nullify the problem of "evil" by avoiding it.
-
Interesting. Which other atheist ‘slebs refuse to debate WLC?
It’s actually as much the other way around WLC has fairly strict rules about who he will debate. They must have a doctorate in a relevant subject.
Nobody in their right mind would debate him though. He knows how to play the game.
-
To verify your contention Here you are pitching God as a human General giving orders etc.
If I'm not mistaken your stance is that you don't believe God ordered slaughter on the historical grounds that history is methodologically naturalistic but a believer is constrained to view it in those terms. Firstly, let's run with your notion of God as a very human General.
The defence of actions here could be that used by those who used the atomic bomb on Japan namely that more bloodshed was avoided.
As an argument based on what believers should believe it fails because believers don't believe in the bowdlerised picture of God you are presenting.
God can see the future risks and possible alternatives in an age where you contend whole nations can be wiped out.Also with God death is not the end and so it is not just the children who could be admitted into heaven.
In your argument you are only prepared to have God around for the bad, naturalistic parts. Is that because it suits your antitheism?
At the end of the day your argument limiting God is almost in the same league as arguing God couldn't perform miracles because they didn't have the technology at that time.
Actually, the Canaanite slaughter is not historical. It never happened. So we really need to ask why the Old Testament authors cast God in such a bad light.
-
Vlad,
This is just a long-winded way of asserting a god of the omnis, therefore a just god even though we feeble humans can’t fathom why, say, a god-ordered genocide is a moral good. It’s a get out of jail free piece of casuistry that tries to nullify the problem of "evil" by avoiding it.
It isn't about "Feeble humans not fathoming why" since this is about Lane Craig's explanation dubbed defence or support by some public atheists.
The irony is, is that it is equivalent to the New Atheist/four horseman "Necessary pre emptive nuclear strike against certain theocratic countries" found in the Gospel of Sam Harris, who I understand still commands affection, respect and status's y
-
The irony is, is that it is equivalent to the New Atheist/four horseman "Necessary pre emptive nuclear strike against certain theocratic countries"
Where is it found?
-
Where is it found?
Sam Harris "The End of Faith".
-
Sam Harris "The End of Faith".
Give us the quote.
-
Give us the quote.
I'm presuming that what Vlad is on about is what Harris covers here.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/response-to-chris-hedges
-
I'm presuming that what Vlad is on about is what Harris covers here.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/response-to-chris-hedges
https://lib.tcu.edu/staff/bellinger/rel-viol/harris_excerpts.htm
-
https://lib.tcu.edu/staff/bellinger/rel-viol/harris_excerpts.htm
So, Vlad, what are the specific problems you have with these excerpts?
Of course excerpts are lacking the context of the piece in which they originally appeared, so it would be easy to muddy the intentions of the original author by, in effect, indulging in quote-mining. The link posted by NS is food for thought in this regard.
-
So, Vlad, what are the specific problems you have with these excerpts?
Of course excerpts are lacking the context of the piece in which they originally appeared, so it would be easy to muddy the intentions of the original author by, in effect, indulging in quote-mining. The link posted by NS is food for thought in this regard.
I'm just flagging up the similarity between a necessary nuclear first strike against a theocratic country (Harris) and a necessary conventional warfare against a country(Lane Craig). You seem to be defending Harris.
While not making any moral judgment on either, to support the former or even being relaxed about it and condemn or become exercised by the latter is hypocrasy.
-
Another apparent alleged Harris quote taken from the previous source
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".
Do you think or believe Harris said this? Is this correct?
-
Another apparent alleged Harris quote taken from the previous source
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".
Do you think or believe Harris said this? Is this correct?
Seems to me worthy of a thread, rather than just a derail. Why don't you start it?
-
Seems to me worthy of a thread, rather than just a derail. Why don't you start it?
I don't consider it a derail so why would I start another thread? There's nothing to stop you doing so and winding this thread back to suit.
-
I don't consider it a derail so why would I start another thread? There's nothing to stop you doing so and winding this thread back to suit.
OK, I'll just ignore your whataboutery.
-
I'm just flagging up the similarity between a necessary nuclear first strike against a theocratic country (Harris) and a necessary conventional warfare against a country(Lane Craig). You seem to be defending Harris.
While not making any moral judgment on either, to support the former or even being relaxed about it and condemn or become exercised by the latter is hypocrasy.
I didn't mention Harris.
-
Another apparent alleged Harris quote taken from the previous source
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".
Do you think or believe Harris said this? Is this correct?
No idea: I'd need to read it in context, so citation please. Why have we switched to Harris through when the thread is about the views of someone else?
-
OK, I'll just ignore your whataboutery.
As I said before one doesn't have to make a moral judgment on
the notion of necessary military action (Harris et Lane Craig) so where whataboutery comes in I know not.
I take it you condemn both Harris and Lane Craig.
However Dawkins would show hypocrisy imv of gigging with Harris while not debating Lane Craig.
-
I'm just flagging up the similarity between a necessary nuclear first strike against a theocratic country (Harris) and a necessary conventional warfare against a country(Lane Craig). You seem to be defending Harris.
While not making any moral judgment on either, to support the former or even being relaxed about it and condemn or become exercised by the latter is hypocrasy.
You think in conventional warfare that it's OK to kill slaughter all non combatants? Are you saying that you and Craig think the Geneva Conventions are wrong?
-
You think in conventional warfare that it's OK to kill slaughter all non combatants? Are you saying that you and Craig think the Geneva Conventions are wrong?
I'm a lesser of evils person as I said. That involves not OK and less not OK.
-
I'm a lesser of evils person as I said. That involves not OK and less not OK.
Not sure how this addresses the question. I did ask what was 'worse' than slaughtering all non combatants but you didn't answer that.
-
Not sure how this addresses the question. I did ask what was 'worse' than slaughtering all non combatants but you didn't answer that.
Slaughtering the entirety of many nations?Conquering many nations and Installing religious infant sacrifice perhaps?
What is your response to Jeremy's suggestion that it never happened?
-
Slaughtering the entirety of many nations?Conquering many nations and Installing religious infant sacrifice perhaps?
What is your response to Jeremy's suggestion that it never happened?
In what way are those alternatives in the situation?
I'm looking at Craig's belief that it happened, and was justified, and divinely ordained, and what that means for his morality. I'm not doing history.
-
https://lib.tcu.edu/staff/bellinger/rel-viol/harris_excerpts.htm
Of course, that doesn't say what you implied. But I kn ew you were going to lie about it.
-
Of course, that doesn't say what you implied. But I kn ew you were going to lie about it.
If you are saying that what Dr Harris said and meant was actually gibberish, I have some sympathy with that.
-
If you are saying that what Dr Harris said and meant was actually gibberish, I have some sympathy with that.
No. You just need reading comprehension skills.