William Lane Craig defenda the Canaanite slaughter

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting. Which other atheist ‘slebs refuse to debate WLC?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[jeremyp]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is it found?

Sam Harris "The End of Faith".

[jeremyp]

Sam Harris "The End of Faith".

Give us the quote.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Gordon]

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.